ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Exports

David Morris: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the contribution of Northern Ireland to the Government's programmes to increase the level of exports for the purposes of international trade.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland on economic development issues. We will continue to work with the Executive to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy and grow the private sector.

David Morris: Does the Minister agree that the inspirational visit to China by the Prime Minister shows that we should redouble our efforts on exporting?

Hugo Swire: Yes, I certainly do. Invest Northern Ireland has recently led trade missions to Brazil, South Africa and Vietnam, and 35 Northern Ireland companies from across the sector went with it. What is going on in China should work as an incentive to others to export. Let me pay tribute to a company that I visited the other day in Ballymena-and I see that thehon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is present. Wrightbus has just supplied 450 double-decker buses to Singapore and has won the design project for the replacement of the iconic Routemaster bus here in London. The answer to rebalancing part of the Northern Irish economy is to get-

Mr Speaker: Order. That answer is too long. The Minister will resume his seat, and he must not repeat that.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the need to provide growth in the Northern Ireland economy and ensure jobs and investment, can he provide assurances to the House that the Prime Minister, on his current trade mission to China, is aware not only of the need to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland but of the products that could be exported as part of international trade-and also of the fact that the Government are about to publish a paper on the Northern Ireland economy and corporation tax?

Hugo Swire: Of course the Prime Minister continues to take an interest in Northern Ireland. The food, drink and tobacco sectors account for 45% of total sales and 46% of external sales. These figures could and should increase, and the Secretary of State and I will work with the devolved Administration, in whatever way we are asked, to support any incentive of that kind.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Secretary of State commit to making representations to the Treasury regarding alterations to how tobacco tax is lifted, so that the Treasury can receive a bigger taxation take while allowing the industry to invest in securing jobs in Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman has in his constituency the Gallaher Group, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited recently. The loss to the United Kingdom economy from contraband cigarettes and forfeited duty is in the region of £2 billion to £3 billion a year. We should consider that closely, and continue to make representations in that regard.

Naomi Long: Is the Minister as concerned as those of us who come from Northern Ireland that recent reports show a third quarter fall in growth in the private sector in Northern Ireland, and will he therefore redouble his efforts to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy more effectively?

Hugo Swire: Clearly, Northern Ireland is not immune to what is going on in the rest of the world-one has only to look over the border at what is going on in Ireland to see that. We work very closely with Northern Ireland on rebalancing the economy and we have the support of the Finance Minister, who, along with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Industry, is meeting the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs this afternoon to discuss corporation tax. We must leave no stone unturned in our attempts to rebalance Northern Ireland's economy and, critically, to provide well-paid and sustainable jobs.

Mr Speaker: Unless I am mistaken, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) did not put a supplementary question to the substantive question. If he did he can nod his head, but if he did not, he should do so.

David Morris: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: He did; he is happy. He is sanguine about it.

The Disappeared

Gavin Williamson: What recent progress has been made on locating the disappeared.

Hugo Swire: In July, the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains successfully recovered the remains of Charlie Armstrong, and it awaits DNA confirmation regarding remains it believes to be those of Gerard Evans and Peter Wilson. This would take the total number of disappeared who have been located to nine.

Gavin Williamson: Is it still the case that the ICLVR is to be wound up at the end of this year?

Hugo Swire: May I pay tribute to the excellent work of the ICLVR, particularly Geoff Knupfer and Jon Hill, who do such good work, as I have seen for myself? I met the Wilson family just before the find was announced, and I can testify to the very serious effect that it has on families who have waited for many, many years to find somewhere to put their loved ones in a grave and go and see them regularly. That achieves closure for many people. The commission is a joint initiative between the Irish and the British Governments. It is led entirely by intelligence, and we will continue to be led by intelligence-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will have to practise. He is far too long-winded, and that has got to change.

Eric Joyce: The Minister refers to the recovery of remains, which is a painful reminder of the need to deal with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. If the Secretary of State decides to place any new obligations on the Historical Enquiries Team, will he ensure that it is fully and properly funded to undertake them?

Hugo Swire: The two bodies are entirely different. We believe that the HET is a good organisation and should be properly resourced, as we believe it represents the way forward.

James Gray: The whole House will think fondly of that gallant soldier Captain Robert Nairac of the Grenadier Guards, who was so brutally killed by the IRA. Does the Minister have any up-to-date information about whether his remains may yet be discovered?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. Alas, Captain Nairac is not alone. A considerable number of bodies have yet to be located, which we hope will happen in due course.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Minister has already referred to the winding up of the commission dealing with the disappeared. Does he think that is wise, and does he think it is wise also to wind up the Independent Monitoring Commission, given the ongoing paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I have not said that we will wind up the former. With reference to the latter, we announced that there would be one more valedictory report. It was established in the first place to monitor the connections between elected representatives and paramilitaries. We believe that that is no longer appropriate or necessary.

Lady Hermon: Would the Minister kindly give me a commitment that fresh efforts will be made to retrieve my young constituent, Lisa Dorrian, who was murdered and disappeared by those with loyalist paramilitary connections five years ago? That is five long Christmases for the family, who deserve closure. What fresh efforts are being made to retrieve her body?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady is entirely correct, but she must understand that the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office in these matters is limited, and quite properly so. The ICLVR is an independent organisation and responds to intelligence provided to it-very often anonymous intelligence. I hope that it will listen to what the hon. Lady has said, but it will respond only when the intelligence comes. I hope that those who have any understanding or any knowledge will bring that knowledge forward.

Barnett Formula Funding

Tom Greatrex: What recent discussions he has had with private sector companies in Northern Ireland on the effects on them of changes in Barnett formula funding for Northern Ireland consequent upon the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with people from the private sector in Northern Ireland. I have found a widespread recognition that the public sector can and should respond by delivering better value, and support for the objective that we and the Executive share of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.

Tom Greatrex: The Minister will be aware of the recent report from PricewaterhouseCoopers stating that 36,000 jobs will be lost in Northern Ireland as a result of the Government's policies-20,000 in the public sector and a further 16,000 in the private sector. What estimate has he made of the cost to the taxpayer of those 36,000 people currently in work being made unemployed by the Government's policies?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, but these are not the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties' cuts. These are Labour's cuts- [Interruption.] Northern Ireland has done better out of the spending review than it was led to believe would have been the case under the previous Government. It is in the interests of everybody in the House to talk up Northern Ireland, to attract inward investment and to rebalance the economy so that it is not so dependent on the public sector. That is the way forward for Northern Ireland, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us on that.

Alun Cairns: Does the Minister agree that to reform the Barnett formula, all the devolved nations would need to agree to a process, and that if one nation, such as the Scottish Government, refused to participate in that process, that would be showing disrespect to all the others?

Hugo Swire: Of course I am aware of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the Barnett formula, the Holtham Commission on Welsh funding and other commentators on the system of devolution funding. At present we are trying to get the public finances under control to get the economy moving again. Any change in the system of funding the devolved Administrations must wait for the stabilisation of the public finances.

Sammy Wilson: One of the impacts on the private sector will be the huge reduction of 40% in capital spending over the next four years, and there is disagreement about whether the settlement honours the St Andrews agreement settlement on capital spending. In the one area where there is dispute, does the capital settlement for Northern Ireland include capital spending on the police? Is that part of the Minister's assessment of the total capital budget for Northern Ireland?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman knows that under the previous Government the reduction was likely to be 50% of capital expenditure. Under us it is 37% over four years. In response to his comments on policing and justice, I can tell him that we stand by the commitments. As he knows, the Northern Ireland Executive's capital allocation of £3.3 billion over the spending review period will permit those costs to be met, but there will be difficult decisions, and unfortunately it is up to the hon. Gentleman, as the Finance Minister at Stormont, to make those difficult decisions. It is up to him and the Executive, and I support his attempts to get them to form a budget.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Northern Ireland will welcome the cut in business taxes, which will create real private sector jobs, and the coalition Government's action to deal with the £120 million a day in interest and debt that we are paying?

Hugo Swire: Yes, of course. Northern Ireland, like other parts of the United Kingdom, will benefit from those actions, which the incoming Government took very quickly. Beyond that, however, we are thinking about how, in the long term, we can stop the dependency on the public sector, which is disproportionate in Northern Ireland. In that context, one way forward will be to look at the whole issue of corporation tax.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Gemma Doyle: What assessment he has made of the likely effects on security in Northern Ireland of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement.

Owen Paterson: Following the outcome of the 2010 spending review, it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how funds are allocated to the Northern Ireland Departments. It will be for the Northern Ireland Justice Minister and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in the first instance, to negotiate the PSNI budget with the Executive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we will protect the people of our country from the terrorist threat with every means at our disposal.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He will appreciate that people in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK will be concerned about the impact of spending cuts on peace and security in Northern Ireland. Can he assure the House that the comprehensive spending review will not impact on front-line community policing in Northern Ireland? That is something that the Minister stopped short of saying in response to an earlier question.

Owen Paterson: We have been absolutely clear that we will stand by Northern Ireland. We will do what is necessary to bear down on that threat, but the first port of call is for the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable to negotiate with the Executive on the very substantial allocation of public money that has been granted to them in the spending round.

Laurence Robertson: The Select Committee on Northern Ireland met the assistant commissioner of the Garda two days ago, and he assured us that in spite of the financial difficulties in Ireland they would continue to police the border, in particular, in the same way. He said that there would be absolutely no reduction in their efforts. Can the Secretary of State give us the same assurance today?

Owen Paterson: Emphatically yes. We have exceptional co-operation with the Garda, and I should like to congratulate them on their seizure of a significant amount of armaments at Dunleer woods in County Louth. Emphatically yes: we will work extremely closely with them and match their effort.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State will be aware of the deteriorating security situation in parts of Northern Ireland due to the dissident threat. Will he be open to an approach, should it be required, for additional resources to deal with that threat as it materialises over the winter months?

Owen Paterson: We have been clear, from the early negotiations that I had with the shadow Secretary of State, when he was Secretary of State, that we would endorse the very substantial policing settlement that the previous Government negotiated with the Northern Ireland Executive. That was quite clear. Should there be security pressure, and should the security position deteriorate, it would be right for the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable to come to us and ask for contributions from the national reserve.

Security Situation

Andrew Stephenson: What his most recent assessment is of the level of threat posed by terrorist groups in Northern Ireland.

Ian Murray: What his most recent assessment is of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. We are not complacent, but I am pleased to tell the House that this year, following eight further arrests this morning, there have been 195 arrests and 71 persons have been charged with terrorist offences. That compares with 106 arrests and 17 charges in the whole of 2009. I commend the security forces for their continued successes in frustrating the efforts of residual terrorist groups. The coalition Government are committed to continuing to promote peace, stability and economic prosperity in Northern Ireland, and standing firmly behind the agreements negotiated and the institutions that they established.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The national security strategy has highlighted the fact that there have been 37 separate attacks this year, so the threat from residual terrorist groups remains high. What steps is he taking to combat that threat?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. We have taken this to the highest level of Government. We presented a paper to the National Security Council, and as a result of that, the threat from Northern Ireland has been put in tier 1 in the national security strategy.

Ian Murray: The latest Independent Monitoring Commission report highlights the continuing involvement of dissident republicans in very serious levels of criminal activity. Will the Minister assure the House that all resources will be made available to ensure that that threat does not continue?

Owen Paterson: I repeat again that we are working extremely closely with the devolved Administration and the Dublin Government on bearing down on this threat, and we will do what is necessary.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the deep anger among all sections of the community in Northern Ireland at the growing level of attacks by paramilitaries-with, indeed, activity on both sides, but particularly among dissident republicans? People are looking for action to be taken, and for co-operation between the agencies for which he is responsible and the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with this problem urgently.

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that comment. That is why we produced a substantial paper for the National Security Council, which was discussed at the highest level; and that is why we are working so closely with the devolved Administration and the Justice Minister, to whom I spoke this morning, and the Government in Dublin. We are determined to work at all levels to end this security problem.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and acknowledge the work that he is doing in terms of the tier 1 level of threat assessment in Northern Ireland. However, the fact that the recent bomb find at East Midlands airport happened on the same day as a bomb find at Belfast City airport shows the level of threat against citizens right across the United Kingdom. Can we be assured that while the threat of al-Qaeda is a priority, the threat in Northern Ireland is also treated as a top priority?

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these threats affect us all in the United Kingdom. That is why the threat from Northern Ireland has been placed in the No. 1 category-in tier 1.

Shaun Woodward: The Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous undertaking before the Hillsborough Castle agreement that the previous Government's financial arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice would be upheld. In relation to the security situation, this unequivocally included a commitment that the Northern Ireland Executive would have access to the reserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he continues to stand by that commitment, without any new conditions being imposed by the Treasury?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I have said this already, but I am happy to look him in the eye and repeat it. Should the security situation deteriorate, then-according to the agreement that the previous Government, in which he was Secretary of State, made with the then Executive-the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable have the right to approach the Government with a clear strategy on security grounds in order to call on the national reserve.

Shaun Woodward: I am grateful for that reply. We all note the decision to raise the threat level here in Great Britain, and the Secretary of State can be assured that the Opposition fully support the decision to address the problems created by that threat. Given the level of recent attacks in Northern Ireland, including the recent use of a hand grenade, and given the need for the response to be measured, proportionate and joined up, would a request by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to meet the Prime Minister as soon as possible be fully supported by the Secretary of State?

Owen Paterson: The Prime Minister made regular visits to Northern Ireland when he was Leader of the Opposition. He met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister then, to discuss a broad range of issues. He intends to go back to Northern Ireland, and at that time he will have the opportunity to discuss matters with them. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to the budget settlement, it is appropriate that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister first discuss that with me, having done their utmost to come to an agreement and consensus in the Executive on a budget for the substantial funds that have been allocated to them in this spending round.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Mark Durkan: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the implications for Northern Ireland of the provisions of part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and with elected representatives in Northern Ireland on the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and will continue to do so as the Bill continues its progress through both Houses.

Mark Durkan: Does the Minister recognise that as it stands, part 2 of the Bill has serious implications for the Northern Ireland Assembly, whose constituencies are meant to be coterminous with parliamentary constituencies? Reviews every five years that could put those constituencies out of cycle, or change the total number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, will be hugely unsettling. Will he take steps to ensure that full consideration is undertaken with the authorities in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as with his ministerial colleagues?

Hugo Swire: rose-[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Minister's reply.

Hugo Swire: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman raised this matter during the passage of the Bill. It is true that coterminosity between the parliamentary and Assembly seats has worked well, and the amended rules can continue to provide for the Electoral Commission to take that into account. I should say to him that as he knows, the size of the Assembly is up to the Assembly, not to Parliament or to this House through the Bill.

Presbyterian Mutual Society

Jonathan Reynolds: When the Government plan to disburse their proposed financial assistance to savers with the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

Hugo Swire: In the spending review announcement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government would meet in full a £175 million loan and £25 million in cash to fund the Northern Ireland Executive's proposal to resolve the PMS crisis.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the Minister for that response, but given that the Government's proposals are a carbon copy of what my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister announced, why did the Secretary of State delay the announcement by six months, causing unnecessary suffering and misunderstanding for the people who had lost money in the PMS?

Hugo Swire: There is a fundamental difference between what the previous Government did and what the current Government have done about the problems connected with the PMS: we have actually done something. We have responded to the request from the Executive in full. We stand by the Prime Minister's commitment, and we are very pleased that we were able to act so swiftly-unlike some others.

Dissident Violence

Patrick Mercer: What assessment he has made of the reasons for the recent increase in the level of dissident violence in Northern Ireland.

Owen Paterson: This violence is a direct response to the continued political progress in Northern Ireland. Those people are outdated and backward-looking. All that they have to offer is to destabilise the peace process and disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland, but they will not succeed. The Government take the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland extremely seriously. There have been 39 attacks so far this year, compared with 22 throughout 2009.

Patrick Mercer: I heard what the Secretary of State had to say earlier about the operations of the police in the Republic. Can he also give me some assurance that there is intelligence sharing between the Northern Irish Government and that in Dublin?

Owen Paterson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for his interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I do not think I can give a better example than the fact that the current Chief Constable always had good relations with his neighbour when he was chief constable of Leicestershire, but has said that his relations with Fachtna Murphy, the Garda commissioner, are even better. I should like publicly to pay tribute to Fachtna Murphy, who is, sadly, retiring at the end of the year. He has been a great friend of Northern Ireland. The collaboration between the Garda and the PSNI is at an exceptional level, and I look forward to helping it continue.

David Simpson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent series of dissident republican operations in my constituency, including the bomb at a railway bridge and a previous bomb that almost killed three local children. Does he share the Chief Constable's current assessment of the levels of resources and manpower available to the PSNI?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for that question. I am also pleased to send on my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have been subject to such intolerable attacks, which, thankfully, have not caused death or injury. Last week the Chief Constable said:
	"We are absolutely putting huge resources back in, we are going to sustain that next year and the year after until those responsible are brought to justice or they can be persuaded to give up."

Fisheries (EU Legislation)

Jim Shannon: What assessment he has made of the effects on the Northern Ireland fishing fleet of the operation of EU legislation on working time; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: Responsibilities here are divided: fisheries generally are a devolved matter, but the UK Government have led on aspects of the EU working time directive as it applies to fishing vessels.

Jim Shannon: EU legislation includes a fundamental right to work. What steps has the Minister taken with his European counterparts to ensure that the fishermen of Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeen, who have had their days at sea restricted, have a right to work?

Hugo Swire: I understand that Diane Dodds and other Northern Ireland MEPs are working hard to address some of the difficulties experienced by the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. I must stress though that fishing matters are partly devolved. None the less, I undertake to look into the matter, write to the hon. Gentleman in due course and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Jason McCartney: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 November.

Nicholas Clegg: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been leading a major Government and trade delegation to China, and is now travelling to Seoul for the G20 summit.
	I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes of 1 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment, who died in Cyprus on Sunday while returning from operational service in Afghanistan. He was a professional and brave airman, and it is very sad that he died while returning home from a tour of duty. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones.
	This week, on the eve of Remembrance day, we especially remember all those who have given their lives in the service of our country, both in recent years and through previous generations. The sacrifices made by our servicemen and women for our peace and freedom must never be forgotten.
	On a much happier note, let me, on behalf of the Government, extend our warmest congratulations and best wishes to the Leader of the Opposition and his partner, Justine, on the birth of their baby son. It is wonderful news and we really are thrilled for them.

Jason McCartney: A 12-year-old haemophiliac from Lindley in Huddersfield was injected with contaminated blood products, giving him HIV, hepatitis C and CJD. When will he and the 2,000 other survivors of this shocking scandal get fair compensation?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that my hon. Friend is a vigorous campaigner for all those whose lives have been so tragically affected by contaminated blood. It really is a dreadful catastrophe for all those affected. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), intends to report by the end of the year on the outcome of the current review to see what more can be done for those affected by contaminated blood. Tomorrow, Health Ministers will hold an open meeting in Westminster Hall at which hon. Members from all parts of the House and peers from the other place can raise their concerns.

Harriet Harman: I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes of 1 Squadron Royal Air Force Regiment. We honour his memory and send condolences to his family. We will remember all our servicemen and women on Remembrance day. I should like to echo, too, the right hon. Gentleman's best wishes to the Leader of the Opposition and Justine on the birth of their new baby.
	In April, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was his aim to end university tuition fees. Will he update the House on how his plan is progressing?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I acknowledge that this is an extraordinarily difficult issue, and I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in opposition. Because of the financial situation and because of the compromises of the coalition Government, we have had to put forward a different policy- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Deputy Prime Minister's update.

Nicholas Clegg: None the less, we have stuck to our wider ambition to make sure that going to university is done in a progressive way, so that people who are currently discouraged from going to university-bright people from poor backgrounds, who are discouraged by the system that we inherited from the right hon. and learned Lady's Government-are able to do so. That is why our policy is more progressive than hers.

Harriet Harman: Well, I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister thinks it is so fair. I hope he will be going out and telling that to all the students and lecturers who are marching on Westminster today. In April he said that increasing tuition fees to £7,000 a year would be a "disaster". What word would he use to describe fees of £9,000?

Nicholas Clegg: I think there is more consensus than the right hon. and learned Lady concedes on the simple principle that people who benefit from going to university should make a contribution to the cost of that university education. The question is: how do we do it? Do we do it fairly and in a progressive way? The proposals that we have put forward will mean that those who earn the least will pay much less than they do at the moment-while those who earn the most will pay over the odds to provide a subsidy to allow people from poor backgrounds to go to university-and will, for the first time, end the discrimination against the 40% of people in our universities who are part-time students, who were so shamefully treated by her Government.

Harriet Harman: None of us agrees with tuition fees of £9,000 a year. This is not about the deficit: the Chancellor said that the deficit would be dealt with by 2014, when the new system will hardly have begun. No, this is not about the deficit; this is about the Deputy Prime Minister going along with a Tory plan to shove the cost of higher education on to students and their families. We all know what it is like, Mr Speaker. You are at Freshers' week. You meet up with a dodgy bloke and you do things that you regret. Is not the truth of it that the Deputy Prime Minister has been led astray by the Tories?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that the right hon. and learned Lady now thinks that she can reposition the Labour party as the champion of students, but let us remember the Labour party's record: against tuition fees in 1997, but introduced them a few months later; against top-up fees in the manifesto in 2001, then introduced top-up fees. Then Labour set up the Browne review, which it is now trashing, and now the Labour party has a policy to tax graduates that half the Front-Bench team does not even believe in. Maybe she will go out to the students who are protesting outside now and explain what on earth her policy is.

Harriet Harman: As a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's plans, English students will pay among the highest fees of any public university system in the industrialised world, and why? It is not to give universities more funds, but to replace the cuts that he is making to university teaching. Can he tell the House what the percentage cut to the university teaching grant is?

Nicholas Clegg: I can certainly confirm that the right hon. and learned Lady and her party also had plans to make massive cuts in the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which would have affected higher education. Here are a few facts. Every single graduate under our scheme will pay less per month than they do under the scheme that we inherited from Labour. The bottom 25% of earners will pay much less in their contributions to their university education than they do at the moment. Part-time students will pay no up-front fees, and not a single student will pay a penny of up-front fees whatsoever. It is a fair and progressive solution to a very difficult problem.

Harriet Harman: It looks as though the right hon. Gentleman has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister on how not to answer the question. I asked him about the cut in the teaching grant. The truth is that it is a staggering 80%--80%. No wonder he is ducking the question. The real reason he is hiking up fees is that he is pulling the plug on public funding, and dumping the cost on to students. Is that not why he is betraying his promise on tuition fees?

Nicholas Clegg: The graduate tax that the right hon. and learned Lady advocates would be more unfair and would allow higher earners to opt out of the system altogether. We all agree-she agrees-across the House that graduates should make some contribution for the benefit of going to university. The question is, how? We have a progressive plan; she has no plan whatsoever.

Harriet Harman: But during the election, the right hon. Gentleman hawked himself around university campuses pledging to vote against tuition fees. By the time Freshers' week was over, he had broken his promise. Every single Liberal Democrat MP signed the pledge not to put up tuition fees; every single one of them is about to break that promise. He must honour his promise to students and their families throughout the country. Will he think again?

Nicholas Clegg: It is quite something to take lectures from the right hon. and learned Lady about party management after the mutiny in the parliamentary Labour party on Monday- [ Interruption. ] Labour Members are cheering her now, but they certainly were not at the mutiny on Monday night. The truth is that before the election we did not know the unholy mess that would be left to us by her party. On this issue, as on so many, the two parties on this side of the House have come together to create a solution for the future. The two parties on this side of the House have one policy; the Labour party has two policies.

Duncan Hames: In the international dialogue about democracy that we are witnessing, what would my right hon. Friend say to those who welcomed the elections in Burma, which were nothing more than an utter sham?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree that those elections were a complete and utter sham. Their conclusion was already decided well before they took place, with reserved seats for the military, and reserved seats for parties that were put up by the military. They are simply swapping their military uniforms for civilian clothing, but keeping their iron dictatorial grip on the people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi should be released when her house arrest comes up for review in the coming days, and real democracy should finally be introduced in Burma.

Tom Greatrex: Given that we all know how important consistency is to the Deputy Prime Minister, will he explain to the House why his Chief Secretary to the Treasury is pictured on the Liberal Democrat website leading the campaign against selling off forestry in Scotland, at the same time as he is proposing that in England?

Nicholas Clegg: The poor Chief Secretary to the Treasury is picked on all the time-first for being ginger. Did the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) make an impact assessment of her outrageously discriminatory remarks?-- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. First, the Deputy Prime Minister must be heard. Secondly, the public thoroughly disapprove of this level of destructive barracking from wherever in the House it comes: note that, and learn from it.

Nicholas Clegg: I was simply making the point that any form of discrimination against rodents or ginger-headed folk is wrong.
	As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) knows, on forestry issues, as on many others, there is a devolved division of responsibility. He should know that better than anyone else.

Charlie Elphicke: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Prime Minister received the "people's port" community mutual's bid for the port of Dover? Will he allow a community right to buy, or will it be another British icon sold overseas, as the previous Labour Government planned?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I am pleased, as no doubt everyone is, that there is such a strong community interest in the future of the port of Dover. Campaigners have received stellar backing, and I wish their campaign all the very best of luck. As my hon. Friend knows, the port's assets are owned by Dover harbour board, not by the Government. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) is considering proposals for a scheme that would allow the board to sell the port, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that decision.

Chi Onwurah: AgustaWestland is an excellent company providing skilled manufacturing jobs in Yeovil. Sheffield Forgemasters is also an excellent company, providing skilled manufacturing jobs in Yorkshire. Why did the Government decide to support one and not the other?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I agree with the hon. Lady that both are outstanding companies. The difference is that the announcement of the decision to provide a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was made 11 days before the general election, when there was no money in this year's budget to make that promise. It was a promise made by the previous Labour Government knowing that the cheque would bounce. We have made a decision on Westland in the light of our difficult, controversial decisions to bring sense to the public finances. That is the difference.

Andrew Stephenson: The Deputy Prime Minister might be aware that, in response to the comprehensive spending review, the three most senior officers of Pendle borough council have announced a wage cut of 27%. In contrast, the chief constable of Lancashire police, Steve Finnigan, has started a 90-day consultation on making all Lancashire's police community support officers redundant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief constable should think again and that he should support our PCSOs- [ Interruption . ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear the Deputy Prime Minister's reply.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I welcome the decision by Pendle borough council and its executive directors to reduce the council's wage bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has called on all local authority chief executives earning £200,000 a year to take a 10% pay cut, and those on £150,000 to take a 5% cut. They need to make sacrifices, just as everyone else is. On policing, of course I understand everyone's attachment to PCSOs, but it would be a flagrant breach of the traditions of policing in this country if we were to start second-guessing chief constables. I think we all want more visible policing; it cannot be right that the system we inherited from Labour means that only 11% of police officers are ever seen on our streets at any one time. That is wrong and it must change.

Gavin Shuker: Tens of thousands of students have gathered outside this place today to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's shameful policy of tripling student debt. He received a request to address the crowd, but as yet no response has been received. May I give him the opportunity to give that response now?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I meet student leaders and representatives of the National Union of Students all the time. I hope that, when he joins the demonstrators, the first thing he will do is explain what on earth his party's policy is. We have a policy; he has no policy and no plan, and is giving no hope to future generations of students.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend might be aware of the great work being done by the East of England Energy Group, and by the borough councils, the county council and local small companies in Norfolk to ensure that Great Yarmouth and East Anglia benefit from economic growth and regeneration through the energy markets. Will he and the Government support our work to ensure that East Anglia gets a fair and even chance to bid for the opportunities that these new markets can provide?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that renewable energy is one of the great industries of the future, and we are doing everything we can to support those areas that want to exploit the opportunities. We have committed £1.4 billion to a regional growth fund, and we are establishing a green investment bank with the explicit aim of creating further investment opportunities in green infrastructure in areas where private sector investment is currently constrained. I am delighted to hear about the way in which councils, businesses and the not-for-profit sector in Norfolk are working so effectively together.

Sheila Gilmore: In answer to a question that I asked last week, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning indicated that the major reason for his proposals on fees was to change the way in which higher education was funded, and to shift the burden from the state to the student. How does the Deputy Prime Minister square that with his party's view that the proposals are a deficit reduction measure only, and that they could be changed in the future?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said earlier, I think every Member agrees that the funding for universities should be a mixture of direct support from the state and contributions made by- [Interruption.] As soon as we came into government, we looked exhaustively at the option of a graduate tax, which was proposed by some Labour Members and by the National Union of Students, but we discovered that that would be much more unfair and would allow particularly high earners to opt out of the system altogether, compared to the progressive system of graduate contributions that we are proposing now.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has a business payment support service, which has helped many businesses in my constituency that have met short-term problems to achieve a delayed payment of taxes-sometimes the taxman can help, apparently. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a valuable service and that HMRC, alongside every other part of Government, should provide as much flexibility and support as possible for business, if we are get out of the recession left to us by the previous Government?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that HMRC's business payment support service is indeed, as he says, a very valuable and important service, and it remains in place. By the end of September this year, 371,200 arrangements had been granted, worth £6.38 billion. That is extraordinarily valuable to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are indeed struggling and deserve all the support they require to power us out of this difficult economic environment.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister for Universities and Science has made it clear that all public funding will be withdrawn from non-STEM subjects in universities. Last Wednesday, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning told a Westminster Hall debate:
	"We will continue to support the arts through the subsidy for teaching in universities."-[ Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 315WH.]
	Who is right?

Nicholas Clegg: The statement we made was very clear. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the model of mixed financing for our universities-partly from the Government and partly from graduates, who, as he knows, stand to benefit on average from tens of thousands in extra earnings because they have a university degree-is one that we are preserving and building on in a progressive manner.

Caroline Dinenage: In Gosport, our Sure Start centres provide valuable support to some of our most vulnerable people, which proves that even the Labour party can get something right. I welcome the Government's continued support for Sure Start, but will the Deputy Prime Minister please reassure me that the programme will be refocused so that those in the greatest need get the greatest support?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree. Sure Start children's centres play a vital role in helping families and giving them the help when they need it through early intervention. That is why we announced in the spending review that Sure Start funding will be maintained in cash terms. As for how that funding is allocated to reflect deprivation, which was the hon. Lady's question, the money is already weighted so that local authority areas with higher levels of disadvantage get more funding than others and, of course, local authorities have a high degree of flexibility and latitude themselves-and we do not propose to change that system at all.

Emily Thornberry: May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to higher education? He says that higher education should be paid partly by the individual and partly by the state, but the confusion that the people of Islington will have is that the right hon. Gentleman was not saying that in April, so when did he change his mind? In the best possible scenario, if we had a fantastic economy and no debt at all, would he still believe that higher education should be paid partly by the student and partly by the state?

Nicholas Clegg: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Lady can piously ask questions about changing one's mind on this issue, when her party said no to fees in 1997, and introduced them; said no to top-up fees in the manifesto of 2001, and introduced them; said yes to the Browne review, but now says no to it; says yes to some graduate taxes, but no to others. Labour Members should make up their minds.

Julian Sturdy: As the coalition continues to stabilise our economy, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure my constituents that providing long-term relief and support for small and medium-sized businesses remains high on the Government's priority list?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, absolutely, as I said in answer to the earlier question. Over the past six months, we have taken a number of steps to help small and medium-sized enterprises: reducing the small profits rate of corporation tax from 21% to 20% from April next year; introducing new rules whereby for any new regulation, another one must be scrapped; the new enterprise capital fund of £37.5 million to provide additional equity finance; and of course the enterprise finance guarantee fund, which will be increased by £200 million. That is real support for the wealth creators of the future.

Meg Munn: On 6 May, hundreds of the Deputy Prime Minister's constituents and hundreds of mine in Sheffield were denied the right to vote because of current legislation. Why has the Deputy Prime Minister not taken the opportunity of legislation currently before Parliament to change the law, so that in future all those in the polling station at close of poll are allowed to vote?

Nicholas Clegg: I am acutely aware of the problem. I visited polling stations several times on that day, and saw the huge queues of people, many of whom were denied their democratic right to exercise a vote. The question is: what do we do about it? I happen to think that, in this instance, simply passing a law will not deal with the problem, which was a lack of resources and poor organisation by the returning officer, who acknowledged as much, as the hon. Lady knows, in Sheffield. That is what we need to address; we should not always simply reach for the statute book.

Tim Farron: The partnership between schools and universities in the provision of teacher education is absolutely critical, and at the moment it works terribly well. The university of Cumbria is Europe's largest provider of newly qualified teachers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that universities such as mine, which provide teacher education, will continue to have a leading role in the training of our teachers of the future?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course we must support all those institutions that produce the great teachers of the future. We must have great teachers who can also lift the aspirations of children in this country and particularly of bright young people from poor backgrounds who at the moment feel completely intimidated from going to university. I hope such teachers will explain to those young people that under the new scheme that we have proposed, they have a real route to live out their hopes and dreams at our great universities in the future.

Heidi Alexander: Yesterday, the National Housing Federation reported that a first-time buyer in London needs a salary of almost £100,000 to buy an average-priced property. In the light of that, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me how many low-cost homes will not be built in the capital as a result of his Government's decision to cut the affordable housing budget by 63%?

Nicholas Clegg: What I do know, of course, is that we inherited a situation in which fewer- [Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, but they have to-it is the truth. Fewer and fewer affordable homes were built, and more and more people and families ended up on the waiting list for affordable homes. We have a plan finally to put that right, and to increase the construction of new affordable homes at a rate that the Labour party never achieved.

John Baron: Successful counter-insurgency operations in the past, such as in Malaya, suggest that not one of the preconditions for success-control of borders, good troop density levels, a credible Government, and support of the majority of the population-exists in Afghanistan. Does this not beg for a more realistic assessment of the situation?

Nicholas Clegg: We have sought to try to introduce a strong element of realism, not only in the extra resources and support that are required for our troops in Afghanistan, but recognise-I think this is the implication of the question-that there is not a military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. There must be a marriage of a military strategy, which applies pressure on insurgents who want to disrupt the peaceful co-existence of communities and people in Afghanistan, with a political process of reintegration and reconciliation, so that we can leave Afghanistan-

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to face the House? Otherwise, it is difficult for him to be fully heard.  [Interruption.] Order. I want to hear the Deputy Prime Minister.

Nicholas Clegg: I was always taught to address the person who had asked me the question, Mr Speaker. So let me say, addressing my hon. Friend, that we need to marry a political strategy with a military strategy. Only by balancing the two will we be able to leave Afghanistan with our heads held high, knowing that we have done the difficult job that we were asked to do there.

Tom Blenkinsop: Apart from the promise to give rapists, murderers and paedophiles the vote, what pre-election promises has the Deputy Prime Minister kept?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not sure whether that was a question or merely a line that the hon. Gentleman has rehearsed over and over again over the past few days. As for the issue of prisoner voting rights, in 2005, as he knows, there was a court judgment on which the last Labour Government consulted repeatedly. At some point, regrettably, we need to bring our law into line with the court judgments, and that is what we will now seek to do.

Paul Uppal: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, according to a report on Radio 5 Live this morning, after the changes in tuition fees graduates earning £25,000 a year will have to pay back only £30 a month?

Nicholas Clegg: Opposition Members simply refuse to acknowledge that the 25% of lowest graduate earners will pay much less than they do now. That seems to me to be a strong indication of the progressive nature of our proposals.

Gregory Campbell: Business to be dealt with later today includes the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the anger and frustration felt by many thousands of Equitable Life policyholders, will he address that, and will today's business-with, hopefully, his support and that of Members in all parts of the House-reach a more satisfactory conclusion for those policyholders?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the last Government there was no prospect of any compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. He will also know that the compensation package that we announced in the comprehensive spending review is far in excess of the compensation levels recommended by the independent review. Of course the situation is difficult, and we would always like to provide more compensation, but the compensation that we are providing is much, much more than many people expected.

Stephen Lloyd: The  Times Educational Supplement recently published a feature article stating how effective the pupil premium would be. Does the Deputy Prime Minister share my frustration at the fact that the Labour party appears to be more interested in scoring partisan points than in supporting the coalition Government's serious attempts-

Mr Speaker: Order. We have got the gist of it, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Nicholas Clegg: I think that the pupil premium is a significant policy. It puts an end to the system that we inherited from Labour, which meant that if you were a poor child at school in one part of the country a lot of extra money would be allocated to your education, whereas that would not happen if you were a poor child in another part of the country. The pupil premium is attached to children from poor backgrounds wherever they live, to lift their sense of aspiration and to improve the one-to-one tuition support that they need if they are to have the fair chance in life that all children deserve in our country.

Phil Wilson: Up to 100,000 tenants are paying rent to more than 44,000 private landlords who are being investigated for non-payment of tax on rental income, and 53% of those tenants are receiving housing benefit. What are the Government doing to clamp down on private landlords who fiddle the tax and housing benefit system?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree that we should come down very hard on those unscrupulous landlords, who are profiteering from the housing benefit system that was so poorly administered by the previous Government. As the hon. Gentleman will know, rents in the private sector have declined by about 5% over the last year, while rents that depend on housing allowance have increased by 3%. That is why we need to bring some sense and proportion to the way in which we administer housing benefit, which has more than doubled over the past few years.

Point of Order

Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 1 November, the Home Secretary made a statement in the House on aviation security. The shadow Home Secretary asked her a number of questions that she was not able to answer. She said that she in due course would write to the shadow Home Secretary with the answers. Ten days later, we have not received those answers. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how we can deal with the situation.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. His complaint will have been heard by Ministers. I hope, from his point of view, that it will also be heeded, and that he will receive the promised answers soon. It may also be helpful for the hon. Gentleman and the House to be reminded that business questions will take place tomorrow. I hope that that is useful.

Support and Protection for Elderly People and Adults at Risk of Abuse

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Nigel Dodds: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote awareness of abuse of elderly people and adults at risk, to promote training on how to recognise and respond to such abuse amongst those who are likely to encounter abuse in the course of their work, to promote greater awareness and understanding of the rights of victims of abuse amongst agencies with responsibilities for providing, arranging, commissioning, monitoring and inspecting care services, to promote the development of local strategies for preventing abuse of elderly people and adults at risk and for ensuring that victims are assisted in recovering from the effects of abuse.
	I am delighted to have this opportunity to move this motion and introduce the Bill. The abuse of elderly people and adults at risk is a hidden problem, and I hope that by raising it in the Committee today I will help to focus attention on this matter which affects hundreds of thousands of people every year, and which a range of organisations, including Age UK and the Alzheimer's Society, have already done much to highlight.
	Issues of abuse are complex and much abuse goes unreported. The failure by abused elderly people and adults generally to report instances of abuse is down to a number of reasons: stigma, shame and even a feeling of guilt by the abused, wrongly but genuinely felt, for having provoked the abuse. Very often the abused adult is dependent on the abuser. Isolation also plays a part, as does lack of contact with care providers or criminal justice agencies.
	The complexity of the problem is illustrated by a piece of work recently carried out in Northern Ireland which showed that three quarters of incidents in which elderly adults were subjected to abuse involved a family member, including very close relatives. Often in such situations the abused person will want to maintain some kind of relationship with the abuser, and they might be threatened that if they report the abuse they will be denied access to other family members, such as grandchildren, thus reinforcing the feelings of loneliness and isolation. In such cases, the elderly person often decides to balance the abuse they are actually suffering against the fear of some future action that they believe would result in their being left in an even worse state.
	As a country, we must do everything we can to protect people at risk, especially our senior citizens, from abuse that can take many different forms. Often these factors are combined, but generally abuse falls into the following categories: emotional, psychological, financial, physical, sexual and neglect. Although Members will be aware of extreme examples of abuse when they are reported in the press and other media, it is clear that much abuse happens almost unnoticed or is passed off and excused as "poor care", or with the comment, "That's just the way he or she"-the family member-"behaves."
	The issue of financial abuse is causing increasing concern. A 2008 Help the Aged report found that up to 2.5% of elderly people felt they had experienced some kind of financial abuse, exploitation or coercion, and in my constituency case load I have come across increasing numbers of specific issues involving the administration of the personal finances of vulnerable adults. That is now becoming a greater problem given the difficult economic times we are facing and pressures on family finances, yet public awareness of the issue is limited.
	Many members of the public at large do not understand the nature of the different types of abuse. That was borne out by the work of a partnership project in Northern Ireland, Uniting Against Elder Abuse, which brought together Age Concern and Help the Aged-which are now united as Age NI-and the Alzheimer's Society and Carers Northern Ireland. The project delivered a two-year strategic programme aimed at raising awareness of the problem generally, providing access to independent advocacy for frail older people and those with dementia, and developing a therapeutic response for those who experience abuse. I can say from the experience we had then in Northern Ireland that people were genuinely taken aback at the report's findings and the extent of the problem.
	The number of people affected is much greater than is sometimes realised. It is estimated that one in 25 of all older people living in the community is affected by some kind of abuse every single year. As the majority of cases occur in the older person's home, agencies such as social services are not necessarily involved or aware. According to one survey, 62% reported that they had had no contact whatever with social services or any other support organisation, highlighting the fact that there is likely to be a considerable hidden minority of older people living in an abusive situation or subject to some kind of abuse without recourse to traditional forms of support or help.
	There must therefore be greater commitment to educating and informing people about the support available to them. There are gaps in education, knowledge and training at the individual level and across the public and voluntary sectors. Those gaps must be plugged. It is vital that we have a single, common piece of legislation to reinforce existing policies designed to protect the elderly and adults at risk of abuse. Current safeguarding legislation is too complex and spread across many and various Acts and measures. It therefore offers only limited protection. No single professional, whether it be a social worker, a police officer or a nurse, could ever be expected to be aware of all the legislation that is out there. That is why overarching, comprehensive and consolidating legislation is needed.
	There would be immense benefit in bringing existing provisions together, including principles, definitions, a duty to investigate, clarification of powers of entry, powers to remove a perpetrator or perpetrators of abuse, and a duty of co-operation. Legislation should not only be about responding to individual allegations of abuse, but should place a strong emphasis on prevention-and not just preventing an abusive situation arising for an individual. What is needed is a major shift towards understanding the circumstances and situations that contribute towards abuse or render people vulnerable to it, acknowledging the reality of its effect and how we as a society must move towards eradicating it.
	Often there appears to be little formal contact between agencies and services, and support can be unco-ordinated and fragmented. Let us compare that with the protection of children, which is a benchmark that we should seek to emulate. There is too much buck-passing over vulnerable adults and senior citizens, and only legislation will end that. Legislation would require suspected abuse to be investigated. Guidance is all well and good, but it applies differently to the various authorities and statutory agencies. The law should apply to all agencies involved in preventing and responding to abuse. Specific legislation would force better co-ordination of the various statutory agencies as they confront the silent offender of abuse. The same legislation could address the training and education deficit, which I have already mentioned, across the range of elderly support services, including the private, public and voluntary sectors.
	Devolved Administrations are already taking steps, or have taken steps, to target elder abuse, with Scotland introducing the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, Wales preparing to make recommendations by the end of this year, it is hoped, and Northern Ireland preparing a policy framework for consultation in early 2011.
	The Department of Health opened up consultation on the "No secrets" guidance in 2009, but neither the previous Government nor this one-I acknowledge that they have been in office for only a short time-have responded to the findings of that consultation, including those on whether legislation is needed.
	Legislation on the abuse of elderly people and adults at risk would facilitate a more comprehensive assessment, with a common benchmark standard across all support agencies. It would establish a more consistent and effective response by statutory providers, ensure better training and education, which would improve awareness, and consolidate local authority guidelines and offer enhanced guidance to the criminal justice system.
	The day we set aside or neglect our responsibility to help and cater for the needs of our senior citizens and those who are open to and at risk of abuse within our society is the day that we lose our moral compass. I believe that this is an extremely important issue and hope that the presentation of the Bill leads to Government action. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr Nigel Dodds, Andrew Percy, Malcolm Wicks, Greg Mulholland, Dr William McCrea, Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson, Mr Gregory Campbell, Sammy Wilson, David Simpson, Ian Paisley and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
	Mr Nigel Dodds accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed (Bill 105).

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Payments

Fabian Hamilton: I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2A) Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.'.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 2, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2A) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration shall report to Parliament on the implications for payments to which this section applies of the findings of the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments, no later than one month after the publication of such findings.'.
	Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2A) In determining the amount of the payments that it is appropriate for the Treasury to authorise under subsection (2), the Treasury must have regard to such matters relating to the adverse effects of that maladministration on those persons and the proper calculation of their resulting losses as have been determined by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to be relevant to and appropriate for that calculation.'.

Fabian Hamilton: I tabled my amendment because, although I am well aware that the Bill is an enabling measure, I feel strongly that a group of Equitable Life policyholders has been unfairly excluded from the compensation scheme that the Government have put in place. You will be pleased to know, Mr Evans, that I will not rehearse the entire history of the Equitable Life saga, because I do not think that we have the time this afternoon. However, to put my amendment into context, it might help right hon. and hon. Members if I remind them of some of the background to the case that I am about to put for the with-profits annuitants who took out their policies before 1992, for whom the Government's proposed scheme will not offer any compensation at all-in stark contrast to the post-1992 with-profits annuitants for whom 100% compensation is now proposed.
	Founded in 1762 as a mutual insurance company based on the ideas of James Dodson, a fellow of the Royal Society and a man well ahead of his time, Equitable Life started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started to sell its infamous guaranteed annuity rate, or GAR, pensions, which gave a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested depending on the age at which the policyholder decided to start taking the annuity. That was to carry on until 1988, at which point the society realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were unsustainable.
	In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business. By that time, it had more than 1.5 million members. In the last Parliament, the Select Committee on Public Administration said in its introduction to its December 2008 report:
	"Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long."
	In June 2009, I introduced an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on Equitable Life following many complaints from constituents over the past few years. In my debate, I was critical of the then Labour Government-my own party's Government-and although I loyally and strongly supported almost all the previous Government's policies, I felt that we were wrong on this issue and should have done far more to implement the parliamentary ombudsman's full and damning report of July 2008 entitled "Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure". Needless to say, that did not make me very popular with my colleagues on the Front Bench at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, tried his best at the end of the last Parliament to implement what I believe to have been a flawed exercise to bring in some sort of compensation scheme by employing Sir John Chadwick to design a system, but that took so long that it was overtaken by the general election in May.
	The new coalition Government decided initially to continue the Chadwick process, to the disappointment of the Equitable Members Action Group. However, I must thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy and the help that he tried to give me when he was Chief Secretary. He clearly understood the moral imperative that Parliament and the Government had to Equitable's policyholders, but his hands were tied and no compensation scheme was forthcoming under the previous Government. That was a great shame.
	When Sir John Chadwick finally published his long-awaited report on 22 July, his recommendation on the total compensation to Equitable policyholders was for just £400 million to £500 million, or about £400 to £500 per person, out of the estimated total losses of approximately £4.8 billion, as calculated by the actuaries Towers Watson almost two years ago. I am reluctant to give praise to the Government parties, but I was delighted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech to the House on the comprehensive spending review on 20 October, scrapped the Chadwick report and proposed a compensation package amounting to £1.5 billion. That figure was a threefold increase on Sir John Chadwick's initial proposal but was still insufficient to make up for the losses incurred by Equitable policyholders. More important, however, the Government accepted at long last the report of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in full. Again, I must reluctantly give credit to the Government for having done something that I wish my Government had done long ago.
	Any delight that surviving Equitable policyholders and I felt at the Chancellor's announcement was soon clouded by the details of the proposed compensation package. All the 37,000 post-1992 with-profits annuitants will eventually receive 100% compensation for their losses since then, but none of the estimated 10,000 pre-1992 with-profits annuitants will receive any compensation. Let me explain how my amendment goes to the heart of this issue.

Jonathan Evans: I have no reluctance in paying tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his independence of thought and the campaign that he has waged on this issue. He has been not a lone voice, but one of very few Labour voices addressing the matter. On pre-992 annuitants, how on earth could one calculate what their losses might be as at that time, bearing in mind the fact that it is very likely that in the late 1980s and early 1990s bonus payments that were probably much larger than was warranted, given subsequent events, were added to their asset share? In other words, they might well already have been overcompensated.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I hope that in continuing my comments I shall answer his question.
	I have long believed that the Equitable saga is a moral issue for us in Parliament. We sought, through the Financial Services Authority, to regulate financial institutions such as Equitable so that those who invested their valuable savings to ensure their future income were protected against fraud and maladministration. Our own ombudsman, Ann Abraham-she works for us-called the failure to regulate Equitable "catastrophic" and pointed to examples of savers encouraged to invest with that company long after it clearly could no longer meet its obligations.
	If we as a nation want to encourage people to save and to provide for their retirement and old age, in addition to what they will receive in state pension, it is essential that the companies offering those savings products can be trusted and relied on. With hindsight, we can see that Equitable clearly could not deliver to the hundreds of thousands of investors who trusted it and those people have been badly let down as a result. We had an obligation to ensure that that could not happen and we now have an obligation-indeed, a duty-to ensure that those who have lost out are fairly compensated for all their losses. This matter is above crude party politics; it is an obligation to which 380 sitting MPs signed up before the last election when they put their names to EMAG's pledge. We must not let the policyholders down now.
	Let me relate some heartbreaking cases that will illustrate better than I can just how people have suffered as a result of Equitable's failure. One of my constituents, Mrs B of Leeds, has written:
	"I signed for my With Profits Annuity in March 1991, investing £57,000. I am really suffering just now with my husband now being disabled and I am still trying to work four days a week to make ends meet. I receive only £141 a month from Equitable and it will continue to reduce. Surely all With Profits Annuitants should be included in the compensation! Have I been harbouring false hopes all these months? If so, there does not seem any point in my continuing to write to my MP or the Prime Minister."
	Another policyholder, Mr D, who is not a constituent of mine as far as I am aware but will be a constituent of somebody in the House, writes:
	"In his letter of 20 October Mark Hoban refers to the government's concern with the plight of the WPAs. However, he fails even to mention the Government's decision that those who started to receive their annuities before September 1992 are to get nothing. This is in spite of the fact that they too have not been allowed to get out, are continuing to suffer, year by year, reductions in their annuities and are older than any of us.
	Fortunately Paul Braithwaite [the Secretary of EMAG] perceived from the first what was going on and has placed the matter of the treatment of the pre-September 1992 WPAs at the top of the agenda for a judicial review. However"-
	this is the crux of what Mr D says-
	"I think our MPs are fair minded enough to perceive for themselves how unjust the proposed action of the Government is. I am writing to my MP straight away."
	Whoever that might be should look out for the letter.
	Once an annuity has been purchased it cannot be sold or changed, so the with-profits annuitants who took out annuities before the September 1992 cut-off date are trapped.

Stephen Lloyd: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this issue and I support his amendment. In a nutshell, on the moral case, the parliamentary ombudsman and Sir John Chadwick both said in writing in advance that all the annuitants should be treated equally and that these annuitants should not be excluded, not least because they are the oldest and most frail.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the work I have done but, as the Committee will know, he is the secretary of the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders, and I thank him for his efforts in this regard. He is absolutely right: Sir John Chadwick did say that, as I shall mention later.
	The with-profits annuitants who took out annuities before the September 1992 cut-off date are as trapped as those who purchased them after that date and their incomes diminish each year. Having taken out policies that they believed would allow them to make ends meet in old age, they now face increasing poverty because Parliament did not act soon enough to prevent the collapse of Equitable. That is why we owe them the compensation that they deserve as much as the post-1992 with-profits annuitants.
	What is so important about September 1992? Let me give further reasons why this is an artificial and unfair cut-off date, which I seek to stop with my amendment. First, annuities could not be exchanged once bought, so every annuitant has suffered from the consequences of regulatory failure irrespective of when their annuity was taken out or what extra bonuses were added. The cut-off date ignores the views of the parliamentary ombudsman, Ann Abraham, and Lord Chadwick in their reports. Even Chadwick, who came up with a much smaller overall compensation package than the £1.5 billion now on the table, agreed that the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants should not be excluded, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) pointed out.
	It is said that because of the changes to the computer system, Equitable's records prior to late 1992 were not available, but the current chief executive of Equitable, Chris Wiscarson, who has been extremely helpful, has previously stated that this is a problem that could be surmounted. The parliamentary ombudsman has previously made it clear that nobody would sensibly have invested in Equitable after 1 July 1991 had the regulator acted effectively and transparently. If that situation had been made apparent to the media and the public at that time, nobody would have sensibly invested after that date.
	It seems clear to me that anybody who took out a policy between July 1991 and September 1992 is being unfairly penalised simply because of a change in Equitable's computer system. This is exacerbated by the fact that policies brought out in this period had the longest exposure to the adverse effects of maladministration. The coalition Government gave a commitment to
	"implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman's recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure."
	My amendment would ensure that this commitment could be carried out properly and at a relatively small additional cost.
	Let me be clear. I am not recommending that we take some of the compensation from the 37,000 who have already been promised 100% compensation, which amounts to about 50% of the total offered by the Government. I am suggesting that we bring forward the £100 million of the total package that was proposed to be given in the next Parliament, and that we add to that a further £100 million from current, albeit limited, reserves.
	As I said earlier, I believe that this is a moral obligation and that Equitable pensioners are looking to us, their recently elected representatives in this Parliament, for justice, which is why I intend to press the amendment to a vote so that there can be no discrimination between with-profit annuitants according to when they purchased those annuities.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there might be more support for the amendment if it did not incur further cost to the taxpayer, bearing in mind the current severe financial constraints?

Fabian Hamilton: Yes, of course the amendment would attract far more support if there was a net zero cost. However, this is an important moral issue. Many of my hon. Friends and other Members know my views, for example, on the Trident replacement, which I know has now been shelved for a while, and on various schemes that take a huge amount of capital expenditure. The sum that we are discussing now is relatively small. I believe there are other savings that may be made, particularly in defence spending, which could pay for this.
	That is a decision that the Government and the two parties that make up the coalition will have to grapple with, but I believe that the policyholders look to us to ensure that the justice they have been promised is delivered. It is a moral obligation, and it overrides many of the other areas of expenditure to which any Government are committed.

Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a moral case to compensate anybody, there must be a moral case to compensate everybody, and not leave some people out because of some mess-up over a computer system?

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. He is right. It is galling when the very vulnerable and frail pensioners who are the ones suffering most because they are the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants look, for example, to the quite correct compensation given to Icesave investors of up to £50,000 per investor, and to some of the other compensation schemes in which the Government have been involved over the years, and find that they, who might not have much longer to live, are going to be without compensation at all.

Jonathan Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being extremely generous in giving way. I fully accept the moral argument that he is putting forward. That is why I was a signatory to the pledge as well. In response to the question I asked earlier, he certainly has a point about taking back the date to 1991. His amendment, though, would go back well before that, but he has not made the argument for going beyond 1991. My second question was how he would compute the compensation. That must be a central question, and in his argument so far I have not heard an answer to that.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. First, there would be relatively few annuitants from further back in time. Clearly, a person who retired in 1981 or 1985 would be getting on a bit in years now, so only a small number of people would be involved. Secondly, Equitable must have records showing what bonuses were paid at different times.
	The further back the scheme goes before 1991, the fewer annuitants there will be who demand or need that compensation, but the need will be greater because of the frailty and the loss in the value of those annuities since then. Since 1991, those annuitants, even though they may have had bonuses before that, continue to see a decline because of the maladministration, which affects them as much as it affects post-1992 annuitants. I hope I have at least partly answered the hon. Gentleman's point.

Jim McGovern: Actuaries are sometimes disdainfully referred to as people who found accountancy too exciting, but surely a good actuary would be able to calculate the sums in question, whether for pre-1991 or post-1991 annuitants.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. We are talking about many hundreds of thousands of policyholders throughout the United Kingdom, but we know that there are about 37,000 or so post-1992 with-profits annuitants. We think there are about 10,000 pre-1992 such annuitants, but the further back we go the fewer there will be, so if it was a difficult, time-consuming exercise to work out relative losses for all policyholders, which it certainly was, which is why Sir John Chadwick was engaged, it will surely be a much easier exercise for the far fewer people who are with-profits annuitants prior to 1991. My hon. Friend's point goes some way to answering the question.

Richard Fuller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. This has been a long-standing issue, and perhaps he can help some of us who are new to the House. He mentioned a total of £100 million from subsequent years' Budgets, plus £100 million from reserves to be allocated to pre-1992 annuitants who are not covered in the proposals. Is the hon. Gentleman making an estimate, or is that sum firm is in his mind? That is a key issue. The concerns expressed about computer records do not stand up against a point of principle, but it is important that we have a sense of how firm and solid the hon. Gentleman's understanding is of the sums that might need to be paid.

Fabian Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I cannot give him a precise answer. The figures that I have quoted are estimates I obtained from the Equitable Members Action Group, which has quite a lot of good people working for it-people who have been in the financial services industry. I go on their expertise. This is the best estimate that we can gain.
	The reality is that many of the annuitants are quite elderly. It is unlikely that in five years we will have the same number we have now. We already know, for example, that 15 policyholders throughout the entire spectrum of Equitable policyholders have died every single day since the disaster happened. We can therefore assume, unfortunately, that more will no longer be with us in the years to come, so the amount of money will be a diminishing sum. The best estimate that we can gain is £200 million, and that estimate comes from EMAG.

Jim Shannon: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify that last point? Obviously, since our last debate on the subject in the Chamber way back in July, some people have passed away. Is there any provision in the amendment for the next of kin to take advantage, in the absence of those who have passed on?

Fabian Hamilton: That is a good point, and it was made during the previous Parliament, in February, at a packed meeting with the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, and Sir John Chadwick. My right hon. Friend made a commitment, which I am not sure the Financial Secretary has made, so perhaps he will clarify the situation in his contribution, that the estates of those who had passed away would receive some compensation. The point that I have just made may be contradicted, but it depends on what the Financial Secretary and the Treasury want to do.

Mark Hoban: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, let me just make it clear that long ago we established the fact that, under any compensation scheme designed, we would make payments to those who had deceased, and that there would be no means-testing.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the Financial Secretary for clarifying that point, which somewhat contradicts what I said earlier about the diminishing amount of money.
	The best estimate that EMAG can give us is £200 million for the 10,000 existing pre-1992 annuitants. I confirm that I wish to press my amendment to a vote, and simply conclude that we owe some of our most frail and vulnerable pensioners no less. I urge all Members to support my amendment.

Jonathan Evans: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, but may I begin by declaring an interest? I am the chairman of a life insurance company, but I have no connection whatever with Equitable Life, financial or otherwise.
	The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), alongside very many Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members prior to the election, fought very hard to put forward the cause of Equitable Life policyholders, and I am pleased and proud of the position that my colleagues and the Minister adopted. Many of us, in the lead-up to the election campaign, signed a pledge to seek to put into operation a number of factors. The first was the recognition of all the individual provisions that the parliamentary ombudsman put forward. The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Government only partially accepted the ombudsman's report, and I am very pleased, and proud of the fact that the Minister fully accepted all its points. I rather wish that EMAG had been a little more generous in its praise of him for having done so.
	Secondly, the compensation that has been put forward will come as a disappointment to some, but the ombudsman made it clear that we had to take account of pressures on the public purse at the time. When we heard Sir John Chadwick's proposals, there was virtual unanimity among those newly elected Government Members that £400 million was completely and utterly inadequate. I thought that the Government might put the figure up to about £1 billion and hope for the best, but we ended up with £1.5 billion.

James Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would not be in this situation, or have to have this conversation, if it had not been for the delay imposed by the previous Government?

Jonathan Evans: That is true, and the record of the outgoing Labour Government in that regard is inglorious, but I do not want to be partisan. In essence, Equitable Life policyholders do not want us endlessly to bash the Opposition; they want to know which way we can go forward. So I shall turn my remarks to the specific points made by the hon. Member for Leeds North East. He made a good moral case for not excluding people who ought properly to be included in the category to whom compensation could be paid, but, as I suggested in my intervention on him, some factors cause me some concern.
	First, the hon. Gentleman referred to the elderly pensioner who had put in £57,000 and now receives a very low monthly figure. I certainly share his concern about that, but, if we were to unpick financial arrangements going back to the 1980s, we would have to consider the difficulty that arose from the fact that Equitable Life gave guaranteed annuity rates to some of its policyholders and, at the same time, record bonus rates to those people who did not have those guarantees. In reality, Equitable Life was building its business on the basis of becoming a market leader in the bonuses that it granted-even to the point where the parliamentary authorities recommended that all hon. Members making additional voluntary contributions should make use of Equitable Life because of its market-leading rates.
	We know now that those rates were deceptive, but during the 1980s those rates were paid and those bonuses added to the asset pool being put together. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that, certainly by 1990, most people with an asset share in an Equitable Life policy probably had an amount that was well beyond what was appropriate for the investment that they had made. In other words, they were over-supplied with bonuses during that period.

Stephen Hammond: I have taken part in a number of these debates during my short period as a Member, and, unlike some hon. Members, I am not reluctant to praise the Minister. However, in my constituency surgery last Friday I saw an 80-year-old gentleman who accepts the points that my hon. Friend now makes, but makes the point himself that the pre-1992 group are still trapped and unable to take any action. Had they been able to take some action to mitigate or ameliorate their circumstances, they would have done so. My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great job in moving the issue forward so quickly, but I hope that he will at least listen to the concerns of the pre-1992 annuitants.

Jonathan Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. He approaches the issue with significant expertise, so he will know that, if we are to achieve justice, it is not just a question of treating all those pre-1992 policyholders in the same way as everybody after 1992. One would go back and assess the pre-1992 annuitants' asset share to see whether they were paid 105%, 110%, 120% or 140% of asset share; and one would correct that, so that the pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants were dealt with in a balanced way. The danger with the proposed approach is that there will not be that balance. It is already clear, from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), that we do not have a basis for the figure of £200 million; it is a wet finger in the air in order to assess the situation.
	The second factor that causes me significant concern is the lack of available actuarial information. I share all the concerns about the Chadwick process, and, although Sir John might have made an observation about the pre-1992 annuitants, he did not compute their liabilities. The danger, therefore, of being seduced by the strong arguments of the hon. Member for Leeds North East, is that we would enter into an open-ended commitment and have great difficulty realising its objective. During the debate, however, he has made a good case on behalf of those annuitants who go back to 1991. We should remember the judgment made by the ombudsman and her terms of reference. Most of the inquiries started looking at the period from 1999 onwards, but most of the condemnation about regulatory failure goes back to events prior to 1991. It is important that the Committee should take that factor into account when invited to say that compensation should be granted going back very many years before that.

Christopher Leslie: I should like to speak to amendment 2, which is grouped with amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) and amendment 7, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).
	In wishing you a happy birthday, Mr Evans, let me say that I do not have any registrable financial interests in the matter under debate. However, I want to place on record that 18 months ago, some while before I was returned to the House, I was occasionally commissioned to give advice and training on parliamentary and public policy matters, and on one occasion, I undertook a day's work for a company whose clients included the former chief executive of Equitable Life; by then, of course, its fund had been closed for many years. I thought it important to disclose that encounter for the avoidance of any doubt. Although I had a day's work indirectly related to Equitable Life some time before coming into Parliament, I have not had any financial or policy discussions on the matter subsequently.
	I have held this brief for a couple of weeks, and it has been an extremely steep learning curve of reviewing history and policy that dates back well over 25 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said. I was struck by the opening words of the House of Commons Library background note to the Bill:
	"Describing the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill as the tip of an iceberg would be harsh on icebergs: at least they have 10% or so of their bulk above the water line. The Bill is but a tiny atoll below which lies the immense bulk of the Equitable Life tragedy."
	In general, I intend to be as supportive as I can of the Bill, as it is a positive step forward in the attempts to rectify a long and sorry saga. The amendment simply seeks to encourage the parliamentary ombudsman to
	"report to Parliament on the implications for payments...of the findings of the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments, no later than one month after the publication of such findings."
	I do not want to go through the entire background that has brought us to this Committee stage today. By my count, eight separate inquiries, and possibly more, have done that, and there are conflicting and sometimes contradictory findings and accounts of what happened in the past and who should be responsible for rectifying the situation for policyholders. However, we know that in the spending review the Government accepted the ombudsman's approach to maladministration and, more relevantly to this debate, to the framework for a compensation package. The Government say that they want to honour the interpretation of the ombudsman's second report in full. That is their choice. There are clearly arguments in favour of that approach, as well as against it.
	The Minister now places great emphasis-although it could be argued that he did so to a lesser degree before the general election, when there were a lot of loud campaigns on signing up to the EMAG pledge-on it being appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payments of compensation in this case, as the ombudsman has said. The Treasury has concluded that it will initially focus on total relative loss as the basis for its payments and will cover those losses in full for post-1992 with-profits annuitants, to the tune of some £620 million. Some 37,000 individuals will be involved in that. That means that that group of with-profits annuitants will receive compensation equivalent to that which they would have gained had they invested in companies other than Equitable Life. However, because of the cap of about £1.5 billion that the Treasury is placing on the total payouts, the other 1 million or so policyholders, including annuitants with older policies-I presume, although I may be wrong about that-will have to have their compensation for relative loss adjusted to fit within the envelope available.
	The Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments, which is chaired by Brian Pomeroy, has been set up by the Minister to advise on the allocation of compensation to policyholders other than those with-profits annuitants, who will be getting 100% compensation. I am conscious of the words of Sir John Chadwick when I think through the technical challenge of administering a compensation payment scheme; it is important that its design and delivery are clear and efficient. I hope that we are not on the brink of a further failure that compounds the problems of the majority of policyholders by opting for a compensation scheme that could be so complex and opaque that it might risk grinding to a halt. We need a scheme that works in practice.
	If the Minister is opting for the ombudsman's approach-as I say, that is the Government's choice-there are questions that need to be answered, and I would be grateful if he could reflect on those when he makes his comments. First, exactly how will the apportionment of the relative loss figures for other policyholders not receiving 100% compensation be calculated under the ombudsman's approach, if we will not be following the Chadwick methodology given the Government's acceptance of all 10 findings by the ombudsman?
	Secondly, will the other policyholders-the vast majority-be classified into broad categories or subject to individual assessment of their cases? Will there be any burden of proof requirement on the other policyholders in the assessment of their relative loss, or is it likely that the compensation scheme will have some assumed automaticity in all cases? I ask that only because the ombudsman's findings of loss are very specifically linked to a policyholder's reliance on the regulatory return data. She said:
	"I find that injustice was sustained by any policyholder who relied on information contained in the society's returns between 1990 and 1996."
	I am trying to get a sense of precisely how that process will work.
	Thirdly, how will the payment scheme take into account all the other maladministration factors for other policyholders that Sir John Chadwick's methodology would not have covered, if we are following a classification scheme?
	Whatever compensation scheme the independent commission eventually alights upon, it is an important starting point to establish that it is consistent with the Minister's intentions-in other words, that it encompasses all the parliamentary ombudsman's conclusions. I gather that there are moves afoot by the Public Administration Committee to interpret whether the ombudsman's model aligns with the payment scheme that eventually emerges. That might be a good idea, but perhaps it is a little circuitous. It would be far better, in my view, to give the ombudsman directly the right and the opportunity to say publicly whether the payment scheme is indeed in keeping with the spirit of her own findings. She could then say whether the total relative loss figures are accurate and whether the compensation scheme is fair, particularly given the controversy over the dates and whether some people will or will not be included in the 100% compensation for with-profits annuitants. The purpose of our amendment is simply to give voice to the ombudsman so that she can confirm her view.
	It is worth noting at this stage that, far from granting the wishes of the Equitable Life policyholders regarding everything they wanted, the main pressure group formed to speak for their interests, EMAG, is angry and perplexed at the nature of the compensation scheme envisaged by Ministers and the constraints placed on the independent payments commission. EMAG says on its website:
	"The independent Commission's recently torn up terms of reference have not at this date"-
	this was a week after the announcement in the spending review-
	"yet been replaced."
	It says that the Minister's letter of 20 October to the commission's chairman
	"makes clear that retrospectively the remit will now totally exclude"
	the full class of with-profits annuitants. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East alluded to that point. EMAG continues:
	"So its remit now is to divvy up £775m between 600,000 and to suggest the prioritisation. This surely cannot be what the Parliamentary Ombudsman had in mind as the role for the independent Commission?"
	Given this question mark over the parliamentary ombudsman's intentions, we felt it important to table the amendment to try to give voice to that.
	There is doubt about whether the compensation arrangements are as much in alignment with the ombudsman's approach as the Financial Secretary would like to argue, and I hope that our amendment will give the ombudsman a chance swiftly to comment on the calibre of the scheme and clarify once and for all whether it fits with her approach. We believe that that can be done quickly, and there seems to us to be no reason why it could not happen within one month of the publication of the scheme's proposals. There would not be any reason to delay payments, and it would aid transparency and confirm whether the Government's arrangements via the commission's payment scheme were the same as those envisaged by the ombudsman. Although amendment 2 may be a belt-and-braces approach, at this stage of the saga we need some cast-iron assurances all round.

Michael Weir: I should like to make a brief contribution to say that if the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) presses his amendment, we will certainly support him.
	I have been debating Equitable Life in the House ever since I was first elected, and I well remember endless debates in the two previous Parliaments in which I was joined by Conservative Members in trying to get the Labour Government to take action. I recognise that some Labour Members also pushed their own Government for action. It was a long battle, and frankly we did not get very far.
	When the new Government were formed, I cannot say I had any great enthusiasm for the thought of the coalition, but I did at least think that perhaps we could get an end to this saga, which had brought so much unfairness to so many people throughout the country, many of them elderly.
	One difficulty has always been what the final compensation bill should be. It is easy to get lost in figures, as they range from Chadwick's £500 million up to EMAG's latest figure of more than £6 billion, but the generally accepted figure seems to be in the region of £4.6 billion. The Government have set a figure of £1.5 billion, which is about a third of that generally accepted figure. I understand their reasoning that that is all that can be afforded, but sorting out Equitable Life could have been one of their great early achievements. It is being undermined by arbitrary decisions, the worst of which is the overall cap on the amount. Rather than an independent commission considering the matter and recommending a figure, a figure has been put in place and all the independent commission can do is decide how it is divided among policyholders.

Fabian Hamilton: As I mentioned in my contribution, about half the overall £1.5 billion package will be consumed by the 100% compensation for the 37,000 post-1992 with-profits annuitants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the remaining balance will provide a considerably smaller sum in the pound to the rest of the policyholders?

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I understand that the figure quoted by EMAG is about 15% of their loss, which is a very small amount for people who have suffered.
	What could have been a very good outcome seems to have been undermined by arbitrary decisions. I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain the rationale behind excluding the 10,000 pre-1992 annuitants from compensation altogether. I do not understand the logic of that. I do not see any suggestion that it should be done in the ombudsman's recommendations.
	I have said in previous debates that it is important that this Parliament supports its independent ombudsman, and there seems to have been a major deviation from what the ombudsman recommended. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) made some interesting and relevant points about how compensation for pre-1992 annuitants should be calculated, which is undoubtedly a difficulty. I am not an actuary and cannot give him the answer to that, but I do not think it is beyond the wit of man-or even an actuary-to work out a figure.
	Ultimately, this is a matter of principle. I raised that point on Second Reading. We are dealing with a situation in which many thousands of our fellow citizens have lost out through maladministration. The Government are ultimately responsible for that maladministration-the previous Government, not the present one, but they are the heirs to that. We should not accept the principle that the Government can say, "Okay, there has been maladministration. We are responsible, but we will set a cap on how much compensation we give and then arbitrarily decide which of the group who have suffered will be compensated." That is a very bad principle. In no other case in which there has been loss and there is liability would anyone be entitled to say, "I'm only paying a proportion of that. That's all I can afford." The Government should not go down that route.
	I believe that we will debate an amendment later to set up a totally independent organisation to consider the matter. We need that to be done independently, not with a cap and not with some people arbitrarily excluded. We will support amendment 1 if it is pressed, because it is only reasonable. We have to right what has been a terrible injustice going back well over a decade.

Frank Dobson: I shall speak very briefly in support of all three amendments in this group-those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), and even the one that I have tabled.
	As drafted, the Bill leaves practically everything to the discretion of the Treasury, which I find objectionable. I remind the Committee of what Winston Churchill said about people at the Treasury-that they were
	"like inverted Micawbers, waiting for something to turn down".
	The chance of their coming to any generous conclusion for people who suffered in the Equitable Life scandal is very small. The courts have held that bodies given discretion are not allowed to fetter their own discretion. It is therefore necessary for the House to fetter the discretion of the Treasury.
	I strongly support the view that we should not allow a situation in which the most elderly people will be excluded from compensation. In view of the fact that everyone places so much weight on the ombudsman's contribution, I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, which suggests that we should give her a further look at what is being proposed. It will be preposterous if, in trying to do what the ombudsman wants, we end up doing something that she thinks is unsatisfactory and inadequate. The reasoning behind the amendment in my name is the same.
	I do not wish to say any more, but the House should do its proper job of telling the Treasury what the rules should be when it considers the matter. I am not getting at Ministers; I am getting at the Treasury as an organisation. It does not have a good record, and ethics and decency are not major considerations for it. They never have been, and perhaps they should not be its major considerations, but we should bear them in mind, so that we can bear down upon the Treasury.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) made an impassioned and moral argument for amendment 1, to which I shall return later.
	I have taken a very keen interest in this issue. It has affected a significant number of people in Stratford-on-Avon, to the extent that I have had hundreds of letters and e-mails about it. Like many other Members, I signed the EMAG pledge before the election, and I believe that backing the Government to get the Bill through is delivering on that pledge.
	It is probably worth our spending just a few moments thinking about the economic landscape in which we are operating. We are borrowing about £500 million a day. Every time we go to sleep and wake up in the morning, we notch up another £500 million. To service the debt costs about £120 million a day-that is not to pay it down, but just to stand still. It is against that background that we must try to resolve the tragedy of Equitable Life.
	Let me spend a couple of minutes on the timelines of the events. In 1988, Equitable Life stopped selling its guaranteed annuity rate policies and, in 1990, those policies became too expensive to honour because of the falls in interest rates and in inflation. In 1999, after the 1997 election, Equitable cut its bonus paid to 90,000 GAR policyholders. In July 2000, the House of Lords ruled that Equitable Life must meet its obligations to its GAR policyholders, thus leaving it with a £1.5 billion liability.
	In February 2001, the Halifax agreed to pay £1 billion for the assets. In July, with- profits policyholders saw the value of their savings slashed by 16%-by almost one fifth. In August, Lord Penrose announced his investigation. In October, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the Treasury Committee that the previous Labour Government might consider compensation for some victims if a grave injustice had occurred.
	In January 2002, policyholders backed a compromise package. In March 2004, the Penrose report blamed Equitable Life's management for the whole affair. Following the report's publication, the Government ruled out compensation and were accused in this House of abandoning policyholders. In April, the parliamentary ombudsman announced that she would reopen her investigation.
	In 2007, the European Parliament called on the UK Government to compensate policyholders. In January 2008, Equitable agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to 407 with-profits annuitants who launched proceedings in 2004. The ombudsman's report was published in 2008. The previous Government said that they would respond by the autumn. When the deadline was missed, the then Prime Minister said that they would respond before Christmas. However, they did not respond until the new year.
	In August 2009, Sir John Chadwick published his first interim report, and in March 2010-more than a year after his appointment-he published his third and final interim report with a promise of a final report in May 2010. That date was subsequently extended to July.
	I go through these events in chronological order to demonstrate the pain that the victims of Equitable Life have had to go through. This is a true human tragedy. The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about the e-mails and letters that he has received from his constituents, and the same is happening in all our constituencies.
	The Government's offer is a very good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) said that, at best, he expected them to offer up to £1 billion. Many colleagues and I voiced our concerns the last time we debated this matter in the Chamber. When one makes a pledge, one must try to honour it.

Richard Fuller: Like many of us, my hon. Friend is wrestling with this question of fairness and with the political obligation to find a fair payment scheme that was mentioned in the Public Administration Committee and that many of us have signed up to. Hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are caught between wanting to praise the Minister for the swiftness of his recommendations-and we praise him for that-and finding, in these difficult times, £1.5 billion. We often talk about that figure in comparison with the Chadwick number. However, does my hon. Friend not accept that we should view the figure with respect to what the Government themselves have said about policyholders' relative loss, which Towers Watson estimated at, I think, £4.3 billion? Does £1.5 billion represent meeting our obligation of fairness if it is set against the relative figure of £4.3 billion that the Government themselves have accepted?

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend is quite right: the figure is £4.3 billion. I, too, have wrestled with the problem. In the current economic climate, offering £1.5 billion to the victims is fair and it delivers on the promise that many of us have signed up to. I hope that many colleagues will support the Government to expedite the process and finally get money flowing to the victims, which we hope will happen by the middle of next year. The figure of £1.5 billion is about four times higher than the £340 million that victims would have received if the coalition Government had accepted the Chadwick report, which is what we feared would happen. I am very comfortable with the sum being offered.

Stephen Lloyd: I accept my hon. Friend's premise that the amount is considerably higher than the previous Government proposed. I also accept that we are in a desperate situation in which we are paying £120 million a day to service a debt. That is outrageous and clearly we must focus on that. However, a way around the challenge is the one that I have presented to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which is to urge the Treasury to revisit the matter in five years' time for the second tranche of the £500 million. By then, the economy will be transformed and we will be in a stronger position. Does my hon. Friend not agree that while the £1.5 billion seems a very generous sum at the minute, a little flexibility from the Treasury means that the further £500 million could be revisited in five years' time?

Nadhim Zahawi: rose-

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, may I remind Members that interventions should be short and that this is not a Second or Third Reading debate? We are speaking to the amendments that are before us and if we focus on them, we will make quicker progress.

Nadhim Zahawi: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, having listed that extraordinary chronology of debacles, it is clear that there could be a problem if we left things open and said, "We might be able to revisit them at some other stage". We would be opening up other doors, and that may cause further delay. I come from a world of business rather than of politics and I believe that, if we try to put a line under a terrible situation and compensate people, we should do it quickly and completely.
	Mr Evans, I take on board your remarks. All I will say is that the Minister should be applauded. There will be no means-testing and the dependants of the deceased policyholders should be included in any compensation. I have had a number of heartrending letters in which relatives have written, saying, "It is too late for us because our loved ones have passed away."
	I understand the passion that the hon. Member for Leeds North East has shown through amendment 1. The problem with the amendment was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who said that it was very difficult to put a quantum on what that number should be. In the current economic climate, I would find it hard to support it if we said, "Oh well, maybe it is £100 million extra from reserves; maybe it's £100 million that we can bring in from future years." None the less, the hon. Gentleman made a strong point about the annuitants from 1991 going forward, and I hope that the Minister was listening carefully.

Fabian Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that creating an arbitrary date-which is what the cut-off point would be-would lead to a great deal of anger and distress among some of the oldest and most vulnerable policyholders?

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Gentleman would be right if the date were purely arbitrary. However, the ombudsman stated that the malpractice occurred in 1991, so the date is not quite as the hon. Gentleman puts it. It has not been plucked out of the air.

Jim Cunningham: Leaving aside the economic difficulties that we face, is not the central problem that when we put a cap on something, we have to make it work? Therefore, we have to arrive at a certain formula to make the cap work, because we are largely in the hands of the Treasury, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said earlier. Unless we get a grip on the Treasury, we will find ourselves in similar situations, and it is my guess that the Treasury has imposed the cap.

Nadhim Zahawi: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What I would say is that, in contrast to the quotation from Winston Churchill earlier, my observation as a new boy to this House over the past six months is that the Treasury has behaved positively. We must remember that we will be administering public money. The Government have no money of their own; rather, we collect money on behalf of the people and then we administer it. It would be foolhardy and perhaps even foolish for us to say, "Let's have somebody else administer public money." At the end of the day, people have to have someone who is accountable, and we are accountable, as is the Treasury.
	Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that the Treasury takes into account a proper evaluation of the total relative losses when determining payments-that is, the figure should not be £4.3 billion, but could be much higher. I strongly disagree with that. Many EMAG members have written to me, lobbying me to see the matter differently, but I have to say that I disagree. Given the current economic hardship, we all face an incredibly difficult situation, in which we are all having to tighten our belts. To deliver compensation of £1.5 billion at this time is entirely fair.
	Amendment 2 is in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all I would say to him is that I understand the thrust of his argument that we should consider what the ombudsman says about the behaviour and actions of the coalition Government in dealing with the issue. However, I would rather get things done and dusted, and have something delivered to the victims than procrastinate further and wait for longer.

Mark Durkan: I can fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said about the Government's proposals being clearly better than what the previous Government did. Frankly, that is not a very hard test to pass. The real test for us in this Committee is surely not whether what we have from this Government is better than what we had from the previous Government. It clearly is better. Rather, we as a Committee have to see whether it is as good as what is set out in the parliamentary ombudsman's findings and recommendations.

Nadhim Zahawi: Just to offer some explanation, what the Government have delivered is not just better than what the previous Government were thinking about-or dithering about-trying to deliver. I also believe that there was a point in this Parliament when the coalition Government were seriously considering implementing only what Chadwick had recommended, but we have moved away from that. We have buried that, and we are now in a much better place for the victims of Equitable Life.

Mark Durkan: My point still stands: the test is a fairly easy one. The Chadwick report was so grossly inadequate as not to be a credible starting point for any Government. Many of us said that to the previous Government, including the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton)-very bravely, loudly and consistently-and many of us have said it to this Government as well.
	For us as Members of the Houses of Parliament, the test that many people will apply is: what regard do we have to the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman? As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) stressed earlier, the public understand the parliamentary ombudsman to be a creature of Parliament and to have some weight and merit in Parliament's considerations. However, the previous Government acted pretty dismissively towards the ombudsman. What we have in some of the amendments before us is an attempt to show clearly that this House will give proper weight to what the parliamentary ombudsman is saying.
	We all received a letter from the parliamentary ombudsman about some of the Government's proposals. Given that, is it wrong that we should reference the judgment of the parliamentary ombudsman-as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is suggesting we do with amendment 2-perhaps as a way of moving on from the scandal and confusion that many feel surrounds the fact that the ombudsman was largely ignored by the Government and, in effect, by Parliament for so long?

Jonathan Evans: I am anxious to ensure that the hon. Gentleman does not undersell what the Minister has done. The hon. Gentleman will recall that every aspect of the parliamentary ombudsman's report has been accepted by the Government and that, furthermore, the report said that whatever the overall compensation package should be, it had to take account of the impact on the public purse. Many of us on the Government Benches think that those are the two crucial tests.

Mark Durkan: That is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing. However, given that the money that we are talking about has been capped according to the Treasury's judgment of what it believes is available-that means that the overall sum to be offered by way of remedy and redress will be a long way short of what all the other assessments say-I believe that it would useful for the Committee to accept an amendment that would allow us to ensure that the parliamentary ombudsman has some say in overseeing the measures. Under the circumstances, that is fair and reasonable, but if the hon. Gentleman is so content that the scheme as it stands meets everything that the ombudsman has said, he should see such an amendment as adding no particular stress or difficulty for the scheme. Such an amendment would be a way of offering public assurance after all the doubts that have been raised about how Government and Parliament have dealt with the issue.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman not also agree that at no time did the ombudsman suggest that any group of annuitants should be debarred from receiving compensation, as is now being proposed?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, which quite properly brings me to amendment 1.

Jonathan Evans: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in giving way, but if he waits until Third Reading, he will hear what I have to say about the totality of the package.

Mark Durkan: What a trailer for Third Reading! We will all be waiting.
	On amendment 1, the hon. Member for Leeds North East set out a compelling case for why it is not just the cap, but the cut-off that we need to be seen to address. We have seen in the past how dates set for various reasons have ended up creating unfair and unforeseen consequences that Parliament did not truly intend. That certainly happened with dates for schemes in previous pension Bills, for reasons that seemed reasonable and understandable to the House at the time. We are now struggling with the consequences that were never intended. We must be wary about such cut-offs.
	The arguments from the hon. Member for Cardiff North about amendment 1 had some validity. I suggest that some of the answers may be found in amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). The hon. Member for Cardiff North said that it might be harder for some pre-1991 annuitants to make the case that some of their losses were directly due to maladministration and that the nature, degree and pattern of maladministration was more obvious and accentuated after that. If so, amendment 7 would allow account to be taken of that, because it states:
	"In determining the amount of the payments that it is appropriate for the Treasury to authorise under subsection (2), the Treasury must have regard to such matters relating to the adverse effects of that maladministration on those persons and the proper calculation of their resulting losses as have been determined by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to be relevant to and appropriate for that calculation."
	Amendment 7 would cut both ways. It would be an assurance that the loss suffered because of maladministration is duly reflected, and it could be used the other way because if it can be shown that some of the people who would be brought into the scheme by virtue of amendment 1 had not suffered because of maladministration, due weight could be given to that. Equally, the pre-1991 undue profits issue-some people went for market glister rather than reliable long-term worth-would not be precluded from being properly addressed and balanced. We all want to achieve an adequate compensation scheme.
	I shall support amendment 1 if it is pressed to a vote, and I commend amendments 2 and 7. Together, they would go some way to improving the Bill. They would also go some way to improving Parliament's reputation at a time when people have been so disappointed and frustrated by how long this problem has been allowed to run on. I welcome the Minister's assurances, which he made in an intervention, that the interests of the dependants of those who have died will also be properly addressed.
	It is not enough to say, "Well, this is great; we now have something that is better than Chadwick. We now have something that is better than the previous Government's proposals." People were deeply distressed by the previous Government's long inertia and indifference, but they are not hugely impressed by urgent inadequacy. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that we do not make errors through urgent inadequacy.

Bob Blackman: I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken to the amendments. I praise our Treasury team, who have done a magnificent job of righting the wrong that was done to Equitable Life policyholders over many years. Opposition Members-there are some exceptions-should hang their heads in shame because of what they did when in government to Equitable Life policyholders. I came to the issue of the damage to policyholders rather late in the process-shortly before the general election. Like others, I was encouraged by my former employer to invest in Equitable Life, but it was a good job that I did not do so, or my view now might be different.
	I remind hon. Members about the pledge that we made before the election: 380 MPs agreed to press for proper compensation for victims by swift, simple, transparent and fair payment schemes, as recommended by the ombudsman; and we agreed that we would all join the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I agree with the pledge, which I signed, and I have honoured every element of it. A large number of colleagues have not joined the all-party group that I have the privilege of co-chairing, and I encourage them to do so even if latterly.
	I want to concentrate on three aspects of the amendments. The first is the moral duty that we owe to people who relied on advice and on the system of the regulator, the Government and Equitable Life. There was a major scandal, because those three bodies connived to swindle people out of their money. That is a sad indictment of what happened, and that is what set Equitable Life aside from all other aspects of the pension industry. We must demonstrate to people, especially young people, that it is worth investing in their future. If young people do not do so, there will be a sad and sorry state of affairs in this country. There is a clear moral duty.
	The second issue is the amount of money that is due in compensation. I am delighted that the Treasury accepted that the ombudsman's recommendation of £4.26 billion was the right amount to which policyholders were entitled. The debate today is not about money, but the Treasury team have come to a view that because of the economic circumstances only £1.5 billion is affordable. They have also had regard to the ombudsman's report, which said clearly that relative loss must be taken into account. The Treasury team must have done some calculations to reach the figure of £1.5 billion, and I trust that the Minister will tell us in his reply today how that figure was arrived at. The reduction from £4.26 billion to £1.5 billion is dramatic, and he must respond to our points.

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend eloquently sets out the outrage that many of us feel, having signed the pledge. Does he agree that our Government, unlike the previous Government, have reached a speedy conclusion, as a result of which more people in the claimant group will receive compensation before there are further deaths? I agree with my hon. Friend about transparency and I, too, would support a motion to set out exactly how the calculations were made, in the spirit of our Government's commitment to greater transparency in all financial matters.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The issues are complex, and the more one reads about and understands the scandal, the more difficult it becomes to resolve it. The Government in their wisdom have set out a compensation scheme that will continue for many years. The £1.5 billion is not a one-off payment that will go into a fund this year and end the matter. It will be spread over many years, and it will extend into the next Parliament.

Mark Hoban: May I clarify the fact that those who receive compensation and are not with-profits policyholders will receive a one-off payment during this Parliament. Only with-profits annuitants will have their payments spread over the rest of their lives.

Bob Blackman: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I was going to refer to that while I was responding to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). The clear issue now is justice for the people in the worst possible position-the trapped annuitants. I applaud the Government for honouring the pledge that 37,000 people who have been trapped as a result of the scandal will receive 100% compensation. I strongly support and endorse that.
	We have a problem, however, and amendment 1 attempts to address it. The amendment has cross-party support; we must be seen to be acting not just as a party but as parliamentarians overseeing the Executive. The problem is that if someone took out a policy on a particular day, they would receive no compensation at all, even though the maladministration was taking place at the time; whereas someone who took out a policy on the following day would get 100% compensation. There are always difficulties when arbitrary dates are set, but that is neither fair nor reasonable.
	I believe that we should set aside the date and review all the trapped annuitants to ensure that they get fair and proper compensation. The Chadwick report has been rubbished by EMAG, and by Members on both sides of the House, but even Chadwick proposed a scheme that would have compensated those trapped annuitants whose policies were taken out before the cut-off date.

Marcus Jones: When my hon. Friend signed the EMAG pledge, as many hon. Members across the House have done, did he believe that we would end up leaving out about 10,000 pre-1992 annuitants from the compensation scheme?

Bob Blackman: I and all the others who are new to the House signed the pledge in the belief that, if we were elected, we would compensate everyone who had suffered as a result of the maladministration, rather than taking an arbitrary position to compensate some and not others. I have heard heart-rending stories from my constituents and from people all over the country who are now living on desperately low pensions, having expected much larger ones, and we have a very strong moral duty to all those people. We throw that away at our peril.

Sarah Wollaston: This is not just a question of fairness. Many of those individuals are older and very vulnerable indeed. The letters that I have received make the point that those people are living on very low incomes at a very vulnerable time of their lives, and they have already suffered from the effects of inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should talk about this as parliamentarians, not on a party political basis.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates that we are talking about the oldest and most vulnerable people, and that they have been dealt with in a most disgraceful way following this scandal. We have a moral duty to compensate them.
	Going back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), it is clear that when the bonuses that were attached early in the process are taken into account, some policyholders might not receive a penny piece in compensation. We need to recognise that, but there is an 18-month gap between the cut-off dates. A large number of the retired people who had taken out annuities could not adjust them once they had purchased them, and they are now trapped in that position. That is why we have a moral duty to compensate them.

Nadhim Zahawi: What action would my hon. Friend recommend? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North mentioned the possibility of people being judged to have received too much. Should we take that money away from them? The malpractice took place in 1991, and we should be talking about 1991, not about 1992 or about an open-ended process.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, if exorbitant bonuses were attached to certain policies, the policyholders would not be due compensation and they would not receive a penny piece. Remember, we are talking about compensation. We cannot take money off policyholders who have been receiving pensions. Parliament just cannot do that; it would be a retrograde tax and therefore unacceptable. Those who are due compensation should receive it, but those who are not due any would not receive any, and if they have benefited in the meantime, well, that is fine and dandy for them.

Jonathan Evans: In regard to the morality of the issue, I agree with many of my hon. Friend's arguments. My concern, however, relates to the practicalities involved when people are policyholders with other companies. Many of them had large bonuses from the 1980s onwards, but get hardly any at all nowadays. We have to take account of this when we look at their asset share, compared with everyone else in the pool in a with-profits system. That is why many people believe that there is no future for with-profits business nowadays.

Bob Blackman: The independent commission will need to look at the relative loss that individual policyholders have experienced as a result of the maladministration. If annuitants took out policies well before the maladministration took place, there would be no relative loss, and they would receive no compensation. The nub of the issue is that we want the review to be independent, so that we can all look the policyholders in the eye and say that we have honoured our pledge to ensure that they were treated properly, and properly compensated. Under the Bill as it is drafted, we cannot do that because of the arbitrary cut-off date.

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend is obviously extremely knowledgeable on this subject. Does he agree that this is perhaps not so much a question of a specific date as of whether or not a policyholder was trapped? If they are trapped, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

Bob Blackman: That is clearly where our moral duty arises. If policyholders are trapped and cannot adjust their position, they are unable to rectify the damage that has been done.
	I want to speak briefly to amendment 7. The Government have accepted that £4.26 billion should be the full amount available to policyholders, 37,000 of whom will receive 100% compensation. That clearly involves a huge amount of money, which will come out of the £1.5 billion. The policyholders who are not trapped annuitants would therefore get something like 15% of the compensation due to them, which seems pretty unfair and unreasonable. We should set up a commission to devise a payment scheme, then look at the results. Instead, £1.5 billion has now been set aside, and an independent commission will set up the mechanism for distributing that money. That could have very serious consequences indeed.
	Parliament has a problem in this regard. I applaud the Government for moving swiftly to settle this matter once and for all, but we are setting up a method for distributing the money and creating expectations out there. About 1.4 million policyholders have been affected by the scandal, and 37,000 will receive full compensation while 10,000 will not get a penny. That leaves rather a lot of policyholders among whom to divide a relatively small amount of money. When the Minister responds to the debate, I trust that he will be able to set out how the calculations were made, so that we can be clear about them.
	Amendment 7 would allow us to review the position in five years' time, when the economy has recovered and the benefits of this Government are clear for all to see, and to top up the compensation further for those people who will be retiring in five, 10, 15 or 25 years' time. We also have a moral duty to honour our pledge to those people. This is one of those cases in which we have set out to do something in the proper way, and I applaud those on the Treasury Bench for moving swiftly to bring the matter to a conclusion so that payments can be made as soon as possible, but we must ensure that we fulfil our moral duty to those policyholders.

Alan Reid: I start by putting firmly on the record my belief that the Government have implemented the parliamentary ombudsman's report and have honoured the pledges made before the election. It was always part of the parliamentary ombudsman's report that this would be a political decision for the Government to make, taking the public finances into account when they set the cap. The Government have set the cap at £1.5 billion. I wish it could have been more, and I hope that it will be possible to revisit this in future when the public finances are in a better state.
	I have sympathy for amendment 1, but let me state my understanding of how it would work in practice. It does not alter the cap that has already been set, so if the pre-September 1992 with-profits annuitants were to be compensated to the same level as the post-September 1992 with-profits annuitants, there would be less for the latter group of people. If the cap remains the same, and the amendment does not alter the cap, giving more to some people would mean giving less to others. I ask the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) who moved the amendment to comment on that when they respond.
	I want to press the Government on why they have chosen the date of September 1992. As other hon. Members have said, the maladministration started in June 1991. Penrose found that when the Equitable Life Assurance Society's board papers were sent to the Government Actuary's Department on 11 June 1991, there was information in those papers showing that the society was not in a good position. Had the Government Actuary's Department publicised that information at that time, investors would have been deterred from investing in the society. There is a strong argument for saying that the date should not be September 1992, but June 1991.
	On 30 July 1992, in an internal briefing, the Government Actuary's Department described the society as being one of the
	"companies on whom we have been keeping a close watch for a number of years"
	and said that Equitable Life remained a company "which caused serious concern". There was evidence in July 1992-in fact, before July 1992-that the Government Actuary's Department was aware that Equitable Life had problems. Surely that should have been made public and investors should have been deterred. In his response, will the Minister clarify why the date of September 1992 was chosen, because it certainly seems to me that an earlier date-say, June 1991 or possibly even earlier-would have been more appropriate?

Marcus Jones: I would like to speak mainly about the position of with-profits annuitants and the pledge that I and other Members of all parties made before the general election-that the Government should make fair and transparent payments to those who had suffered as a consequence of the debacle of Equitable Life. I am talking about 350 local people in my constituency who are part of the Equitable Members Action Group. Those 350 include people associated with many companies that were in the Equitable Life scheme. Many hundreds of other people are affected. For some, Equitable Life provided their only private pension to supplement their state pension provision.
	I welcome the fact that for a number of my constituents, that pledge has been made good, and I understand that the trapped annuitants in the post-1992 cohort will receive 100% of their compensation. I am delighted about that. Needless to say, I am also very concerned for the pre-1992 Equitable Life investors for whom, it seems, there will be no compensation at all. That seems contrary to the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman, contrary to EMAG's suggestions and contrary to the views of Sir John Chadwick, for whom not many Members have a great deal of time.
	I understand that it is difficult to quantify the losses, but, if the Government have the will, the losses of the pre-1992 annuitants should be explored. The people to whom we made a pledge before the general election in May were not necessarily concerned whether they were pre-1992 annuitants or post-1992 annuitants. Their concern was as Equitable Life policyholders looking for justice.
	If the Government and the Treasury have the will to deal with this situation, they should do so; if not, they should explain how I justify the position to constituents who have been wronged.
	If the Government and the Treasury are prepared to look at compensating the pre-1992 annuitants, there has to be a health warning, because there is a law of unintended consequences, should we be stuck at the compensation figure of £1.5 billion. Many of my constituents who are post-1992 annuitants might be unaffected by any decision to include the pre-1992 annuitants.
	Amendment 7 deals with that position and the relative losses. The Treasury should consider it, although I am concerned about whether it could be taken into account within the current comprehensive spending review or would need to be considered after the current CSR period expires.
	I would like to ask the Minister several questions. First, will he look again at how to compensate the pre-1992 annuitants, and at how that might be quantified? Will he commit to working with his Treasury colleagues to take into account payments beyond the CSR period to enable the pre-1992 annuitants to be compensated without prejudicing the position of the post-1992 annuitants and that of Equitable Life policyholders generally?
	I implore the Minister again-I did so in the last debate on this subject-to recognise that the Government's decision over Equitable Life raises questions not only about the integrity of the current Government, but about the integrity of savings and investments for one's retirement. I am well aware that many of my constituents do not have their own retirement provision. The Government should encourage people to provide for their retirement, but if we do not ensure that there is a safety net for people who have invested and done the right thing for their retirement, they will think that it is not worth putting themselves out by investing money for their retirements during their early years of work.
	I ask the Minister to consider those points extremely carefully before any decisions are taken this afternoon.

Mark Hoban: I start by referring to the closing question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). He will be aware that in July we published proposals to strengthen the regulation of retail financial services, including pensions, which I hope will go some way towards reassuring people that we have learned the lessons from the past and put in place a much more stable and robust framework for the regulation of long-term savings.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss, first, the role of the parliamentary ombudsman in developing our policy on the payment scheme. Her work has been central to our approach. I also want to focus on with-profits annuitants and those who took out their policies prior to September 1992. These issues have been raised particularly since our announcements in the spending review. I hope that I can bring some clarity to the treatment of different groups of with-profits annuitants.
	At the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that about £1.5 billion of funding will be provided for the Equitable Life payment scheme. As hon. Members have said, that is more than four times the figure produced by the Chadwick process, which was set in motion by the Opposition. The funding includes the full cost of losses to policyholders with with-profits annuity policies-approximately £620 million-which will be paid through regular payments. That amount is to cover those with with-profits annuity policies, whose policies started between 1 September 1992 and 31 December 2000. As hon. Members have indicated, those who took out with-profits annuity policies prior to 1992-in fact, not just with-profits annuitants but anyone who took out a policy prior to 1 September 1992-are excluded from the scheme. The Government are committed to implementing the ombudsman's recommendation to introduce a fair and transparent payment scheme to Equitable Life policyholders for their relative loss as a result of regulatory failure. That is what the ombudsman asked us to do, and that is what we are implementing. The Bill authorises us to make payment under the scheme.

Nadhim Zahawi: Is it not precisely the point that, rather than being an open-ended compensation scheme, the scheme relates to malpractice?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our obligation is to compensate people for regulatory failure by the Government when they were the regulator of Equitable Life. The scheme is not an open-ended compensation scheme. It is very focused, and that was the ombudsman's recommendation. Her locus in this matter is a consequence of the Government having acted as the regulator for Equitable Life during the period in question.
	Let me explain to the Committee and to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), who raised the question, why 1 September 1992 is a logical, not arbitrary, date. The ombudsman indicated in her report that there were problems with the regulatory returns for 1991, and that those could influence policyholder behaviour. However, they could not have come to the attention of policyholders, and prospective policyholders, before they were submitted at the end of June 1992. No policyholder would have been aware of that regulatory failure until the returns had been published. It is unlikely that those returns would have come to anyone's attention prior to 1 September 1992. I stress that the date is not arbitrary, but a consequence of the ombudsman's findings and how they impact on what policyholders would have been aware of. Policyholders would not have been aware of the regulatory failure until the autumn of 1992.

Fabian Hamilton: I accept the Minister's point about the date not being arbitrary, but does he not accept that the regulatory failure affected those annuitants who could not change their annuities, even if they were purchased before September 1992? Along with those annuitants who purchased policies after September 1992, they continue to see a decline. Therefore, they were affected by regulatory failure.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an assumption that the scheme is open-ended, but it is designed to compensate policyholders who invested in Equitable Life from 1 September 1992. With regard to the implications of that, I shall respond to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans).

Michael Weir: Will the Minister explain further, as I do not quite understand? He seems to be saying that only those who became aware of a regulatory failure in 1992 are affected. However, am I not right in thinking that that suggests that the regulatory failure goes back prior to 1992, and would have affected people then, although they would not have been aware of it? Are those people not entitled to compensation?

Mark Hoban: The ombudsman is concerned about people who invested in Equitable Life who might not have done so had they been aware of that regulatory failure. That regulatory failure would not have been known to them until September 1992, so there is a clear, rational argument for 1 September 1992 being the right date to start the calculation of losses.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Hoban: Let me continue.
	We are excluding that group of people because they took out policies before any maladministration could have affected their investment decision. Therefore, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, they suffered no relative loss.

Bob Blackman: But will the Minister answer the moral issue? At the time when people were making investment decisions, and taking out these policies, the regulatory failure was going on. As they became victims of that regulatory failure, surely we have a moral duty to compensate them.

Mark Hoban: When people made the decision on the information available to them, the relevant information was not in the public domain, and would not have affected their investment decision until September 1992. That is a clear, logical, sensible starting point, based on principles and on the ombudsman's findings, for the maladministration, and that is the point from which we should calculate relative loss for policyholders.

Mark Durkan: The Minister is in danger of asking the Committee to accept the notion that customer ignorance can be a legislator's excuse. That cannot be so. If the Minister is trying to say that what they did not know did them no harm, that is preposterous. They did not know, and they have suffered harm.

Mark Hoban: I do not agree with that point. There is a clear principle: the basis on which people were investing in Equitable Life. At that point, no one knew about the maladministration.
	We should also bear in mind the issue of practicality and the lack of information available to Equitable Life's policyholders. Hon. Members should reflect on the fact that no one would have made investment decisions based on anything that happened prior to 1992 until that information was in the public domain. That is why the group has been excluded from the calculation of relative loss.

John Baron: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. No one suggests that the situation is not difficult, but whether or not one was aware of maladministration, and whether or not it existed pre '92, surely the central point is that annuitants who took out a policy pre '92 suffered relative loss post '92, courtesy of maladministration. To return to an earlier point, perhaps there is a moral duty to include such people in the compensation, as I believe that the parliamentary ombudsman suggested.

Mark Hoban: The parliamentary ombudsman's findings were clear: she said that the maladministration started in 1991, but that it would not have been obvious to policyholders until September 1992.
	Let me deal with two issues that hon. Members should have take into account in assessing the point. First, as has been mentioned, there are challenges around getting information for the pre '92 period. Secondly, there is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North about the timing of losses. We recognise that pre '92 with-profits annuitants were affected by how Equitable Life was run. Sir John Chadwick and Towers Watson looked into what those WPAs would have received from Equitable Life had there been no maladministration. They concluded that they received more from Equitable Life as a result of maladministration than they would have done had it been properly regulated. That was because Equitable Life paid out more to them in the early years than it would have done had there been no maladministration. Let me give an example to prove that.
	If a with-profits annuitant had purchased their policy in 1989 and gained through that purchase an income of £7,200, by 1993 the policyholder would have been receiving an annuity of approximately £10,000 per annum. Part of that sum was a result of the bonuses that had been declared on the policy since commencement. It is recognised that Equitable Life was paying higher bonuses than it could afford during the late '80s and early 1990s. If Equitable Life had not been over-bonusing during that period, Towers Watson has calculated that the policyholder would have received only £9,500 per year. It is a consequence of the maladministration that the policyholder is receiving £500 more than he or she should have during that period.
	Equitable Life continued to overpay bonuses throughout most of the 1990s. As a result, by 2002 that policyholder was receiving £17,000 per annum. If the over-bonusing had not taken place, the policyholder would have received only £15,800, so he or she was still receiving more as a consequence of maladministration.
	In 2003, Equitable Life cut the rate of annuity payments to its with-profits policyholders by about 20%. In the absence of maladministration, the value of payments to with-profits policyholders would also have been cut, although, owing to market performance, by only 18%. After the cuts in 2003, our example policyholder was receiving £12,900 per year from Equitable Life. Had there been no maladministration, he or she would have been receiving only £12,300. I hope that that example has helped to clarify the consequences of maladministration, namely that even after the cuts in 2003 policyholders are still receiving more than they would have if Equitable Life had been properly regulated. For a range of reasons, their plight is not as it has been represented.
	The first question to be asked, then, is "When did maladministration affect policyholders and the decisions that were made?" The second relates to the practicality of extracting data pre-1992, which is well established and has been well aired in the Chadwick report and elsewhere; and the third concerns the consequence of maladministration in Equitable Life, which is that with-profits annuitants are receiving more over the lifetime of their policy than they would have received if that maladministration had not taken place.

Jonathan Evans: I was interested in the way in which my hon. Friend dealt with my point about over-bonusing, but I feel that he has undermined another point that I made: I suggested that it was not possible to make such calculations, but my hon. Friend has suggested that Towers Watson has done so. In a sense that also undermines the thrust of why the pre-1992 policyholders should be excluded. I had assumed that they might not have been disadvantaged and that it was too difficult to work out the numbers, but if Towers Watson has worked out those numbers and there is no relative loss, it seems a bit odd not to include them, at least for the purpose of calculating the position and telling them that there is no loss.

Mark Hoban: I was trying to make two points. First, those policyholders were excluded from the calculation of relative loss as a consequence of the ombudsman's findings and her view on when maladministration had taken place. According to the example that I have given, they would not have suffered loss in any event. I am merely saying that, in my opinion, there is a strong case in principle for the exclusion of those policyholders, and in practical terms they have not suffered loss.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: I want to make some more progress.
	The fact that with-profits annuitants who bought their annuities before 1 September 1992 have seen a reduction in the level of payments that they currently receive from their annuities is a result of poor investment market performance and the fact that their earlier annuity payments were artificially high. That was because of the structure of the policies that they bought, or because they received too much in the earlier years, as Equitable Life paid out more on a discretionary basis than it should have. Unlike the value of conventional annuities, the value of a with-profits annuity varies according to investment return. Although the reductions are regrettable, they are not instances of Government maladministration, and therefore Government should not be providing compensation for that group of policyholders.
	A number of Members mentioned Sir John Chadwick. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that Sir John's report had been rubbished by some people. The report included a mechanism for the calculation of internal relative loss that would have dealt with the pre-1992 annuitants, but, as my hon. Friend said, there was widespread criticism of it, not just in the House but by all the commentators, by EMAG and by others. No one came forward with an alternative scheme to compensate the pre-1992 annuitants, because no one had really thought about them. It needs to be recognised that they fall outside the parameters of the ombudsman's report, because she did not envisage a need to compensate them.
	Let me now deal with the future role of the ombudsman in this process. When we came to office, we pledged to
	"implement the Parliamentary Ombudsman's recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders".
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that pledge at the time of the comprehensive spending review, when he announced our plans that we have for the scheme.
	As we all know, the ombudsman has worked tirelessly to help to ensure that justice is delivered to the policyholders who have waited so long for a resolution of this issue. Her continued interest in the matter has been of great help, and has brought some clarity to what is clearly a very complex issue. The ombudsman has been generous with her time, and has continued to contribute to the debate. She has, for instance, appeared before the Public Administration Committee. I discussed the Chadwick report with her in the run-up to the spending review, and her views helped the Government to reach a view on the losses suffered by policyholders.
	I should welcome any continued contribution that the ombudsman might wish to make to the debate on Equitable Life, and if she wished to advise Parliament of her views on the work of the independent commission, that would assist both the House and the Government; however, I think it would be inappropriate to require her to play such a role. Her role and remit are clearly set out in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, which does not give the ombudsman a standing obligation to continue to advise this House as to the response to her reports. There is good reason for that, not least the need to make appropriate use of the ombudsman's resources. It must be for the ombudsman herself to decide what role she wishes to play once she has finished her investigation.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) asked how we would implement the ombudsman's approach. We have said that the Government accept the calculation of relative loss as £4.3 billion. The ombudsman wrote to Members on 26 July this year saying that she recognised that the relative-loss approach adopted by Towers Watson
	"provides a firm foundation on which to build."
	That is the basis on which we introduced the scheme and accepted the losses.
	The independent commission will advise on the allocation of remaining funds to not-with-profits annuitants, apart from the post-1992 WPAs. The Equitable Life database allows us to apply relative-loss methodology to each policyholder's data, so there will be no individual requirement to claim or provide evidence of claim, or indeed to reveal the instances of maladministration that are relied on. That will benefit all policyholders who suffered relative loss. The ombudsman spoke of reliance on regulatory returns, but Sir John's alternative approach does not require us to ascertain what reliance was involved. Effectively, that gives people the benefit of the doubt, and in my view it means a simpler, fairer and more transparent scheme.
	Sir John also talked about the distribution of losses, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Thirty per cent. of policyholders suffered no loss at all, about 405 suffered a loss of between £1 and £1,000, and 60% suffered a loss of between £1 and £5,000. Therefore, as Members will recognise, the distribution of losses is quite varied. A large number of policyholders either have no loss or suffered a relatively small loss. That gives the payments commission some flexibility in respect of the design of the scheme and how to use the pot. I should, however, stress to Members that the amount that is available is fixed, so while we may want to be more generous to one group, that would mean that another group suffers. We need to bear that in mind in considering eligibility.
	I encourage my hon. Friends to reject any amendments in this group that are put to a vote. We have come up with a fair scheme that is based on the ombudsman's findings; the loss reflects her calculation. I therefore think this is a good scheme, representing a balance of fairness between policyholders and taxpayers.

Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of his rationale for the compensation scheme. I am afraid, however, that I still do not accept the argument that the cut-off should be absolute and rigid and that those who took out annuities before 1 September 1992 should not receive any compensation or be eligible in any way. As I do not fully accept his argument, I will press amendment 1 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 76, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2B) The design and administration of any scheme of payments to which this section applies shall be independent of government.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2C) The Treasury shall publish details of the independent appeals procedure for policyholders as defined in subsection (2) above to use in the event of dispute over the compensation payment decision in their case, no later than three months after commencement of this Act.'.
	Government amendment 6.
	New clause 1- Distribution of payments-
	'(1) An independent payments commission shall be established comprising three members appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(2) The independent payments commission shall design a distribution scheme for payments made arising from this Act.
	(3) In designing a distribution scheme under subsection (2) the independent payments commission shall consult with interested parties, including the Equitable Life Assurance Society and representatives of policyholders.
	(4) The Treasury may make provision by order made by statutory instrument for payments to be made in line with the distribution scheme designed by the independent payments commission.
	(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Christopher Leslie: I shall speak to amendments 3 and 4, which stand in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. Amendment 3 would enshrine in the Bill the fact that the design and administration of any payments scheme should be independent of Government. It is pretty straightforward and simple-in fact, it would be difficult for it to be more straightforward and simple-but we think it important to try to encourage the Government to enshrine in the Bill the Minister's pronouncements so far that the design of the compensation scheme should be independent of Government. That is an extremely important point, especially as it was part of the conclusions drawn by the parliamentary ombudsman herself.
	The Minister has asked the independent commission, chaired by Brian Pomeroy, to report by the end of January, but there is too much wiggle room for the Minister then to take those recommendations and bring the design and the administration of the subsequent payments scheme in-house within the Treasury. I see no clear reason why the Bill does not contain clarity on the next steps forward, particularly in relation to the daunting task of creating a payments scheme to cover upwards of 1 million policyholders not falling into the 100% compensated with-profit annuitant category.
	Many other policyholders are still sceptical of the Government's intentions and EMAG, which is the body representing many of those policyholders, is voicing its discontent with those who, before the election, signed up to their pledge to create "fair and transparent" payment schemes, which they now attack as akin to asking 1 million people-to quote the words of EMAG's Paul Braithwaite-to
	"share a pack of Smarties".
	Obviously, EMAG is making its point in its own particular way, but clearly there is some doubt and some cynicism about the approach that the Minister is taking. I am sure, having heard what he has had to say before, that he indeed wants a level of independence in the payments scheme as far as possible, but I do not understand why that commitment has not been included in the legislation. That would seem to me to be the best way forward.
	Amendment 4 seeks to tackle the issue of any appeals procedure that might be necessary for policyholders in the compensation scheme. We suggest that no later than three months after the commencement of the Bill the Treasury be required to spell out quite how that appeals procedure would operate for the policyholders who are not content with the judgments made in the compensation scheme that eventually ensues. Several hon. Members argued for an appeals procedure on Second Reading on 14 September-my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) among them-and it was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
	In that debate, the Minister stated that he had raised the issue with his officials but that there were clear problems. He said he would pursue it, so the purpose of the amendment is to find out whether he has had the opportunity to do so and what the appeals process will look like. I certainly expect that there will be complexity, not just in the payment scheme but in any subsequent individual appeals adjudication, and that could be quite difficult to imagine at this stage. However, it needs clarification given the route that the Minister has chosen, moving away from the ex gratia model in the Chadwick methodology and instead accepting the ombudsman's approach to compensation.
	I was glad that the Minister said there were components of the Chadwick methodology that he favoured bringing into any compensation scheme-specifically that there would be no burden of proof on individual policyholders to show that they had been misled by the regulatory returns. That would certainly make the scheme simpler. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether the independent payments commission will eventually metamorphose into an authority for administering the payments? If so, will it be asked to design an appeals system, or is it the Treasury's intention to undertake that part of the design?
	Perhaps the Minister could say whether he sees any parallels with the appeals system set up when the former Department of Trade and Industry introduced an appeals mechanism in respect of the ill-health complaints about what was then known as vibration white finger. He will remember that a series of complex compensation payments were made in those cases, but an appeals system was set up that had a route into a judicial process and eventually to the High Court. If some policyholders might become involved in a judicial process, it would be useful to have clarity about whether the same will happen.
	Will the Minister also confirm not only, as I think he said, that the administrative costs of operating the compensation programme will be separate from the compensation fund, but that any appeals costs will also be separate from the compensation fund? I am sure that the Committee will welcome any clarification of the Government's intentions, and in the meantime we felt that the amendment was a reasonable device to ensure that those answers are forthcoming.

Bob Blackman: I shall speak to new clause 1, which I tabled, but I made a long speech on the earlier group of amendments and I do not want to repeat all the points I made then.
	We need to make the whole process clear, transparent and independent of Government so that the money that has been set aside to compensate the victims of this scandal is seen to be distributed so that they receive their due compensation in a manner that is independent of the Treasury. The dead hand of Treasury officials should not mean that the scheme is designed in a particular way. I do not necessarily need to press the new clause, but I seek assurances from the Minister that we have a full, independent, transparent way to compensate the victims, who have been so badly treated over the past 10 years.

Mark Durkan: Obviously we are waiting to hear what the Government will say about their amendment, but the other amendments-including the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)-are in essence an attempt to ensure that there is a sense of competent independence in how the scheme is administered and payments made. In terms of making appeals available and ensuring that the design and administration of the scheme are independent of Government, the new clause offers a reasonable construct of what a clearly independent scheme would be.
	In the debate on the previous group of amendments, there were many references to pledges that many of us signed and how far the Government's measures will mean that we have discharged those pledges, but I do not think that any of us signed pledges that said we would do the whole thing just according to Treasury lights and nothing else. The amendments are an attempt to ensure that it will not only be Treasury lights that will govern the terms of the scheme and its performance.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel, however, that the problem remains that the whole thing will be governed by the ultimate cap? That is the difficulty that faces all Equitable Life policyholders.

Mark Durkan: Yes, I do. There is no escaping the constraints that the cap will create. In the last group of amendments, we considered the questions that arise when the cap comes together with the cut-off. That conspires to create a pretty selective injustice for a group of people who are then left with very marginal compensation.
	Even a very independent process, such as that proposed in the amendments, will be constrained by the cap. However, people would trust a credible independent process applying that cap with due consideration for all the concerns, rights and needs of policyholders more than they would trust the Treasury. In the last debate some Government Members said confidently how impressed they had been with the Treasury since they came into the House. That might well be-we are in the early stages of this Parliament and this Government and the first few pages of the exercise book are lovely, neat, impressive and perfect-but degeneration creeps in later on and even the Treasury will revert to its traditional roots and habits.

Anne Main: I have confidence in the Treasury trying to sort this out-I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that. However, I am concerned about anything that pushes this matter into the long grass. We do not need any more delays caused by trying to set up other bodies. That is why I would like to say, "Get on with it and get the Treasury doing it."

Mark Durkan: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Harrow East, for example, is trying to sow or fertilise long grass. This is about getting something that is credible, competent and reliable and the Committee should try to help in that regard. That is the spirit of these amendments.
	There has been much criticism of the underperformance, to put it mildly, of the previous Government on this issue over more than one Parliament. Let us remember that those Ministers were not deliberately ignoring the plight of their own constituents who were coming to them or the problems highlighted by many of us from constituencies across the United Kingdom. They were constrained by the advice that they were getting from the same Treasury that people are now so happy with. The Treasury was advising that serious precedents and problems would be created.

Nigel Dodds: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but Ministers are there to take decisions. They listen to advice but it is up to them to make things happen. He and I, as former Ministers, know that only too well, so why is he making an excuse for the inaction of the previous Government and their failure to respond to the needs of Equitable Life policyholders?

Mark Durkan: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here for the debates on earlier amendments, he would know that I made no such excuses then. Indeed, in all previous debates, I have been very critical of the performance of previous Governments. We have both been the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, as he says. When I held that position, I used the line, "I'm the Minister of Finance; I don't suffer from depression but I am a carrier." That is the effect: Treasury Ministers are put in that sort of position. They become aware of constraints and difficulties that they then have to put before everyone else and impose on them as well.
	My point is not that Ministers were right or wrong to listen to the advice but that we, as a Committee, must choose whether to go along with the Bill and say that the scheme will proceed only according to Treasury lights or whether to say instead that it should go according to wider lights and be informed by the sort of considerations reflected in the various amendments that hon. Members have tabled and by the many good observations made by Members on both sides of the Committee. Either we want to trust the Treasury and leave the scheme entirely in its hands, with its considerations and constraints alone, or we want to honour the spirit of what we have all pledged to those who have lost out with Equitable Life and to act in the light of the sad experiences that we have heard about.
	I commend the amendments to the Committee. I shall wait to hear what the Government say about their amendment, but it seems to reinforce the Treasury's whip hand over the whole scheme.

Mark Hoban: I take the same view as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on the responsibility of Ministers. Civil servants provide advice but Ministers decide and act and we cannot ignore that responsibility. We have taken this matter very seriously and have sought, over the past six months, to drive through a speedy resolution to the problem. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on tackling this matter.
	On the amendments before us, the purpose of amendment 3 is to make the design and operational mechanism of the scheme "independent of government". I understand the need for independence in the design of the payment scheme, which is why I established the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments. The commission's advice will necessarily form the basis of the scheme's design. It will advise on how best fairly to allocate payments among policyholders, with the exception of with-profits annuitants, and it will consider which groups, if any, should be prioritised. It is right that that process should be independent, so the scheme will be independently designed.
	The Government have considered whether the scheme should also be operated independently of the Government, as amendment 3 proposes, and have concluded that that would not be appropriate for three key reasons. First, it would delay the commencement of payments. Our ambition is to start making payments in the middle of next year using our preferred delivery partner National Savings and Investment. I shall say more about that on amendment 6. If amendment 3 were accepted, NS&I, which is an Executive agency of the Treasury, could not be used as the delivery partner as it would not be operating independently of the Treasury, which would therefore have to establish a new, independent body or identify an existing such body that could operate the scheme. It is also likely that legislation would be required to task the independent body with the design and operation of the scheme, which would delay significantly the making of payments to policyholders.
	Secondly, the Government have established an independent commission to advise on the allocation of payments. This function is independent of the Government and is key in determining a fair allocation of payments. Making the operational delivery provider, whose job is largely about sending out the payments and making sure that cheques get to the people who are entitled to receive them, independent of the Treasury would not add significant value to that task.
	Finally, it is important to ensure that value for money is considered when deciding on a delivery partner. The Treasury has satisfied itself that NS&I has the capacity and the capability to deliver the scheme, while at the same time providing value for money. The Government consider that by establishing the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments on 22 July, we achieved the aim that is at the heart of the amendment.
	I turn to amendment 4 and what policyholders should do if they consider that they are not being treated fairly under the scheme. The Government are committed to treating policyholders fairly. In line with that, there will certainly be a means by which policyholders can raise concerns about the incorrect application of scheme rules to individual cases. We have given much thought to how best to deal with complaints and have made a great deal of progress in putting together a process that is fair and thorough. Full details of this process will be included in the document that sets out the scheme design in full.

Angie Bray: I spoke about this last time we discussed the matter. Given that the message to savers from the previous Government was non-existent or at least negative, does my hon. Friend think the message that the present Government are sending to savers is adequate? Are we saying clearly, "We understand that you have been badly let down by Government and we want to put things right as much as we can, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves"?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are two aspects to it. First, in respect of Equitable Life, the speed with which we have acted demonstrates our commitment to a resolution of the problem. The second is a forward-looking and prospective issue, which is why we have brought forward proposals to improve the regulation of retail financial services through the establishment of the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority. That will be a boost to regulation and give confidence to savers that the market will be better regulated. It is important, and we have introduced measures recently, to ensure that if anything goes wrong, there is a proper process in place to tackle that.
	I was commenting on the scheme appeals mechanism, which will be published before the scheme begins making payments and will be made available for parliamentary scrutiny. If a policyholder believes that the rules of the scheme have been incorrectly applied to their data, they will be able to raise a query with the delivery body, stating the nature of their concern. The query will be pursued by the delivery body.
	If there is merit in the challenge and it is upheld, a recalculation will take place. If the challenge is not agreed by the delivery body, the policyholder will have the option of taking their case to the review panel. The review panel will consider the case in full and be able to make a fresh decision based on the facts of the case. It will be independent of the original decision-making process. If a complainant's case is upheld, the review panel will ensure that a recalculation is carried out. If the complainant remains unhappy with the review panel's decision, they will be able to challenge that decision in court by way of judicial review.

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend referred to cases in which the rules of the scheme might not have been correctly applied, but such are the complexities of Equitable Life policyholders-for example, a constituent of mine whose policies were additional voluntary contributions in a pension scheme which has been wound up-that someone might wish to argue that their particular type of case had not been envisaged in the way the rules were formulated, and that a specific decision needed to be made in that case. Will the scheme be wide enough to make that possible?

Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I would expect the payments commission to design a payments scheme that would be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that all groups of policyholders were covered by it, so any appeal would be on the basis only of any data used to calculate the losses, rather than an appeal in principle against the design of the scheme. I will bear in mind the point that my right hon. Friend makes and encourage the commission, when it takes representations from people, to think as widely as possible about the different groups of policyholders that need to be taken into account.

Christopher Leslie: The Minister is being extremely helpful and at least setting out a sense of what the architecture of that appeals system will be. He said that it would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Can he say for the record that the relevant statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure?

Mark Hoban: There is no requirement in the Bill to lay the scheme as a statutory instrument, but I shall ensure that when the scheme design is produced, it is laid before the House and there is an opportunity to scrutinise it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the cost of administration and the cost of the appeals mechanism, and he was right to recollect that I said previously that the cost of administration would be separate from the compensation pot. That is still the case, and it goes without saying that the cost of the appeals mechanism will also be separate from the compensation pot. We want the money that is set aside for compensation to be used for compensation.

Bob Blackman: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the appeals process, which, in this complex and complicated arrangement, will be important. Will he elucidate further on the effect of the time frame of the appeals process? What would happen if, for example, an individual policyholder or set of policyholders, who felt that they had been wronged and not received the compensation that they were due, went through the process and that led to a breach of the cap? If they were suddenly compensated with a lot more money than had already been allocated, how would that be dealt with?

Mark Hoban: In that situation, there would be two aspects: first, the design that the payment scheme had applied; and secondly, the data that were available to the policyholder. The scheme will be designed in such a way that it does not breach the cap, so it would be possible to appeal only if the data were incorrect. The data that will be used to calculate the compensation will come from a database supplied by Equitable Life, and I hope that its data are of a high standard, so that those situations do not occur.
	From the details given today, the Government have been considering very carefully the design of the appeals procedure, and we will publish details of the procedure, along with other aspects of the scheme, ahead of the time that amendment 4 proposes. So in light of that we believe that the amendment is not necessary.
	Let me turn to amendment 6, which is in my name. The delivery of the Equitable Life payments scheme is an important matter, and since we took office we have made huge strides towards finding a resolution to the Equitable Life issue. However, we are aware that, for many policyholders, the issue will continue until they finally receive the money. As such, it is important that we find the right delivery partner to help us do that. Having given the matter careful consideration and looked at a range of options, our preferred option is to use NS&I, to deliver the scheme.
	Officials have held many meetings with NS&I to find out not only whether it is capable of carrying out that important task, but the processes by which delivery could be carried out. There are many factors that make NS&I an appropriate delivery partner for the scheme. One of the most obvious and important is capability. As part of its everyday functions, NS&I makes millions of payments to customers every month. It has processes and infrastructure in place and experience of carrying out the functions that the scheme will require.
	The need for value for money in the delivery of the scheme is also important. We are all aware that, in a climate where we have had to make difficult decisions about where to make cuts, the Government must look for ways of making the cost of delivering the scheme reasonable. Using NS&I will allow us to draw upon existing Government relationships and contracts, and I am satisfied that NS&I can provide a good delivery mechanism by which we can start making payments in line with our stated ambition of the middle of next year.

Christopher Leslie: I am grateful to the Minister for the information about National Savings & Investment being the preferred vehicle. In theory, there is a separation between policy, in terms of the scheme design, and operations, in terms of the administration but blurred edges can sometimes appear between the two. Will the independent commission hold the ring in any disputes about the mechanism, timing and administration of the scheme? Who will be the final arbiter of any disputes that arise from the process? Presumably, it will be the independent commission.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is important that we are able to operationalise, as it were, the scheme design. That is why I have encouraged the payments commission to engage with NS&I to ensure that the scheme that the commission designs can be delivered. That is an important part of the process, and I expect the commission to do that during the course of its work. I think that addresses the hon. Gentleman's point.
	Let me turn finally to new clause 1 and the status of the independent commission. I have already spoken about the importance of the work of the commission, and I am not sure that the new clause, which would give it statutory footing, would add value to its work.

Mark Durkan: Returning to amendment 6, can the Minister assure us that it is there only to provide proper statutory cover to the director of savings and NS&I in relation to the scheme, and not to extend Treasury control or constraints in relation to it?

Mark Hoban: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We could not use NS&I if we did not include this power in the Bill. Its purpose is to enable NS&I to act as a delivery partner, not to give the Treasury some way of reaching back into the payments scheme. I reassure him, and others, that the power is there merely to deliver the outcome of the scheme.
	The role of the payments commission will be key. It will advise on the distribution of payments to those other than WPAs, and I will take its advice extremely seriously. The new clause would introduce a requirement for the commission to consult key bodies in the development of its advice, but let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it would need no statutory encouragement to do so. The commission has already met Equitable Life and EMAG, and it has published a discussion paper asking for more views on the guiding principles for determining fairness in allocating and prioritising the funding. I do not believe that an amendment to the Bill would make it any more consultative and thorough in its task. My hon. Friend is aware that I have made the commitment to go along to the all-party group with the chairman of the commission to engage with parliamentarians on this matter. That is a very clear sign of the way in which we want to engage, or the commission wants to engage, with stakeholders to come up with the best design for the scheme. I encourage people to read and engage with the commission's discussion paper, too.
	The new clause would also introduce a statutory duty for the Government to lay the design of the scheme before Parliament in the form of a statutory instrument in order to allow full scrutiny. I entirely understand the thinking behind this, and transparency has been at the heart of our approach to developing the payments scheme. However, as I have said, I will publish and lay before Parliament a document setting out the scheme design in detail, which may then be debated as Parliament chooses. Again, I do not think that a statutory requirement will make my commitment to full transparency any stronger. The Government therefore resist the new clause.
	Furthermore, including provision in the Bill as to the status and operation of the independent commission would pose a very serious risk to the timetable of the commission. The commission is already in operation and has been since July, and it is due to report at the end of January. Notwithstanding the speed with which the House is dealing with the Bill, it will still take several weeks for it to finish its passage through this House and the other place. If the commission had to be reformed after the Bill received Royal Assent, to restart its deliberations so as to comply with the provisions of the new clause, there would be a real risk of delay to its advice. This would, in turn, delay the making of payments to policyholders-something that I am sure none of us would want to happen. In the light of this, and given the comfort that I hope I have provided on the operation of the commission, I invite hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Christopher Leslie: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the information about the preferred vehicle for the payment scheme. Although we would have preferred to see some of the issues regarding the design of the scheme independently set out and enshrined in the Bill for the avoidance of doubt, I accept his commitment in making these points on the record. Similarly, in respect of the appeals mechanism, this debate has given us the opportunity to shed a little light on to how he envisages that arrangement playing out.
	I hope that the Minister's commitment to allowing further parliamentary scrutiny will not involve merely tabling a negative resolution on the Order Paper so that Members have to beg the indulgence of those on the Treasury Bench to find time to debate it. Given the amount of interest in these matters across the House, the affirmative procedure would be preferable, as that would allow us to consider them in detail. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2D) The Treasury shall lay before Parliament details of the timings and planned dates for payments of compensation to which this section applies, no later than three months after commencement of this Act.'.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	'(2A) After determining the total amount of the payments that the Treasury is to authorise under subsection (2) and the persons to whom those payments are to be made, the Treasury must secure-
	(a) that each of those persons is paid the full amount due to that person in a single payment, and
	(b) that the single payment is made as soon as practicable.'.

Christopher Leslie: The amendment is intended to draw out more information specifically about the timing of the compensation payment scheme that the Financial Secretary envisages. In particular, we wish to ensure that the Treasury will lay before Parliament details of the timing and planned dates for payments no later than three months after the commencement of the Act.
	We know that this long saga has involved many raised hopes, which have often been dashed. Although there were very good reasons for the last Government's detailed consideration of complex issues, I accept in hindsight that decisions could and should have been taken more quickly and handled better. There were sound reasons why Ministers took a different approach to that of the Government today, but we are where we are, as the saying goes, and I wish to the ask the Financial Secretary a few questions about how the matter will progress from here onwards.
	I am aware that table 3 in the spending review document, on page 12, sets out the phasing of the total finance set aside as being £520 million in 2011-12, £315 million in 2012-13, £210 million in 2013-14 and finally £100 million in 2014-15. As the explanatory notes to the Bill state, that comes to a total of £1.1 billion that has been set aside for this spending review period. Clearly there is a discrepancy with the £1.5 billion figure that we have been talking about, which presumably goes beyond the spending review period. I have a number of questions for the Financial Secretary, and I hope that he will expand upon the details.
	First, on what basis have those figures been arrived at? Do they represent the expected phasing of payments, or are administrative costs included, for example, distorting the apparently higher first-year figure set out in the spending review document? I presume that the administration costs have to be set out somewhere in the budgetary figures. If so, will the Financial Secretary clarify his intentions? I do not want policyholders to labour under the misapprehension that they will necessarily receive the bulk of their compensation up front, as those figures might suggest.
	At what stage will the timing and phasing of payments become clear? Does the Financial Secretary expect that the independent commission will set out those details early on, and will there be any opportunity to enshrine the timing of those arrangements in law, perhaps through regulations, even though they will be designed independently of Ministers? In other words, will the commission come back to Parliament and say, "This is how we are going proceed"?
	There have been reports that three tranches of payments are expected over a four-year period. Can the Financial Secretary clarify whether that expectation is broadly reasonable for the policyholders involved? The Government are clearly about to hand over many of the arrangements to the independent commission and to National Savings & Investment, but it is still important that we know the broad parameters that they will use. That is the purpose of the amendment-we are seeking a public commitment and transparency about the timing of the payments.

Bob Blackman: I rise to support amendment 8. I do not want to go over all the ground that we covered in debating the previous amendments, but the purpose of the amendment is precisely what we talked about earlier. Hon. Members intervened to say, "Let's get this done. Let's get it over with and ensure that policyholders are properly compensated as quickly as possible."
	It is clear that trapped annuitants will receive their compensation in staged payments over the life of their pensions. However, we get into complex territory again when discussing the other policyholders and the difference between with-profits and other annuities. As I understand it-I hope that the Financial Secretary will clarify this-tranches will be paid out over the life of the comprehensive spending review period. The third tranche will only get paid in 2013, which still leaves some £500 million to be paid out in the next comprehensive spending review period. As we understand it, this will be a long-drawn out affair, so perhaps we can have further clarification on the issue.
	We have set aside £1.5 billion to compensate the victims of this scandal and we have set up an independent commission to design the scheme and decide how that money should be dispensed. The purpose of the amendment is to say that we should now get on with it and compensate those people while they are still alive. We should not hang on to the money and drag these payments out over an extended period.
	We want to put in place a rapid approach. Once again, I congratulate the Treasury team on its rapid approach to resolving the scandal. None the less, if we are to have long and extended periods of payment, many policyholders who have been affected by this scandal will sadly have died before they can receive their money. Therefore, I trust that we can implement this clause and ensure that we demonstrate to all the policyholders who have been so badly affected by the scandal that they will receive their due compensation very quickly.

Mark Hoban: Let me deal with amendments 5 and 8. We have stated that our ambition is to commence payments in the middle of next year. As the Committee is aware, we have made great progress on this issue. Within six months of coming to office, we have published Sir John's report and the supporting material; we have provided the first bottom-up estimate of losses suffered by policyholders; we have set aside £1.5 billion for the payment schemes; we have announced that we will cover the full losses of eligible with-profits annuitants; and we have established the Independent Commission on Equitable Life Payments to advise us on the fair allocation of payments among policyholders. Such progress shows how seriously we take this matter and how quickly we want to find a resolution. Our ambition is to commence payments in the middle of next year, and our track record of getting things done quickly on Equitable Life shows that we are capable of doing so.
	Let me set out the process that we are following to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible. In line with out commitment to independence, we have set up the independent commission to advise us on how we can fairly allocate the funds among policyholders, with the exception of the with-profits annuitants and their estates, and on any priority groups or classes of person who should be paid earlier.
	Such an approach will help to inform the sequencing of payments. To ensure that the payments can begin as soon as practicable, we have set a challenging timetable for the commission and it will report at the end of January 2011. Between the end of January and the dates that payments commence, we will be laying the advice of the independent commission over the operational technicalities of the scheme to ensure that the end-to-end process operates well. We will then publish a scheme design document that sets out the end-to-end process of the scheme in the spring. We will also finalise the arrangements with the delivery agent. That will help to ensure that when the scheme goes live, we can get payments to policyholders efficiently.
	I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that this Government are committed to making payments to policyholders as soon as it is practicable and that we are taking all possible steps to achieve that. As a result, amendment 5 is unnecessary. I have addressed the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about the sequencing of payments. We are seeking advice from the new payments commission on how that sequencing will take place and how it will fit within the envelope of public spending that is set out in the comprehensive spending review.
	Let me turn to amendment 8, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke. The amendment deals with the issue of how payments should be made. I recognise the fact that policyholders have waited far too long for a resolution to the matter. That is why at the spending review we set out how we envisage the scheme working. I want to set out that vision again. Those policyholders who do not have a with-profits annuitants policy will receive their payments in one lump sum to give them the closure that they need quickly. As it happens, amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, would mean that with-profits annuitants would not receive their payments in the way that we envisage. One of the reasons why we have been able to increase the amount available to policyholders is so that we can spread the amounts going to with-profits annuitants over the remainder of their lives. If my hon. Friend's amendment were accepted, it would stop that process and mean that their payments would come out of the £1 billion set aside at the time of the CSR. I therefore suggest that the amendment would not help policyholders to receive quite as much money as we believe they should.
	Owing to logistical constraints associated with such a large and complex scheme and to affordability constraints, we cannot make all lump sum payments immediately. They will be paid out over the first three years of the spending review period. That is why I have asked the commission on payments to advise me on whether there are any classes of policyholders whose payments should be prioritised, to ensure that those in most urgent need of redress are paid first.

Christopher Leslie: This may be a naive question, but box 2.7 in the spending review says:
	"The Government expects the total amount of funding for the scheme to be in the region of £1.5 billion."
	That is the envelope that we have been debating, and that figure matters quite a lot, especially for those other policyholders. However, the same box says that
	"£1 billion will be allocated to the Payments Scheme in this Spending Review period, which will cover...the initial costs of the first three years of WPA"-
	with-profits annuitants-
	"regular payments, and all payments to other policyholders."
	Can the Minister explain the difference between the £1 billion and the £1.5 billion, and say how the timings will be affected? Presumably the other £500 million will arrive after the spending review period, but I am a bit confused on that point.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which gives me the opportunity to clarify the make-up of the £1.5 billion. The figure includes the full cost of the losses to with-profits annuitants-approximately £620 million-which will be made through regular payments. However, taking into account the pressures on the public purse, the Treasury could allocate only £1 billion over the first three years of the spending review. That will cover two things: the first three years of payments to with-profits annuitants, and lump-sum payments to all other policyholders and to the estates of deceased with-profits annuitants.
	It is important to start to pay off with-profits annuitants' losses quickly, alongside the lump-sum payments to other policyholders. About £225 million of the £1 billion is for with-profits annuitants and their estates, leaving approximately £775 million for lump-sum payments to non-with-profits annuitants. The Towers Watson estimate of £620 million for with-profits annuity losses leaves approximately £395 million for the rest of the WPA losses from 2014-15 onwards. Those who are quicker at mental arithmetic than me will have worked out that the total comes to about £1.4 billion. The balance is a contingency, because the payments to with-profits annuitants are based on their longevity. We hope that they live long and healthy lives, and that buffer is set aside to cover this need. That is how the maths works out.

John Redwood: Could my hon. Friend provide further clarification on the tax status of those receiving such payments?

Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend pre-empts a point that I was going to refer to in the clause stand part debate. He gives me an opportunity to say now that the payments will be free of tax.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There has been a very expansive debate so far, so there will not be a clause stand part debate. If the Minister wants to say anything, I would encourage him to say it now.

Mark Hoban: You are right, Ms Primarolo, we have had an extensive debate, so I will ensure that I now have my notes to hand for the clause stand part debate. I should clarify the treatment of the payments under the tax and benefits system. They will not be treated as income for tax purposes, and will not be taken into account in the calculation of tax credits, which is a benefit for policyholders. In terms of benefits, they will be treated as capital rather than income, and given the beneficial nature of the treatment of capital in the benefits system, that helps policyholders. We have sought in the design of the scheme, through measures such as the tax and benefits treatment, to maximise the value so that policyholders will receive the full amount.

Nadhim Zahawi: I will test the Financial Secretary's arithmetic a little further. Has he worked out what that advantage is over and above the £1.5 billion?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. It is difficult to calculate that because, as he will recognise, the tax status of Equitable Life policyholders varies. Some pay no tax, some pay tax at the 20p rate, some pay tax at the 40p rate, and some may even pay tax at the 50p rate. The value will depend on their tax status, and we do not have sufficient access to taxpayers' records to be able to match Equitable Life policyholders with their tax records, so we cannot calculate the benefit. However, he will appreciate that it could provide a significant benefit to some policyholders, and I hope that they will recognise that when they receive their payments. We have sought to be as generous as possible in the tax and benefits treatment for that purpose.

John Redwood: I thank the Minister for an important improvement to the scheme, which I am sure is welcomed.

Mark Hoban: I thank my right hon. Friend. When designing the scheme, we considered seriously how to ensure that policyholders would benefit as much as possible from the payments. If we had been less generous, we would have been accused of clawing back money through the back door, and that is an impression that we want to dispel.

Alan Beith: I welcome that announcement, but there is a group of people who are affected in multiple ways: those who have funds in Equitable Life that are not yet in payment and who have been given transfer values substantially below what they believe the fund to be worth, even now. If they are waiting up to three years, and take the money out, accepting the transfer penalty, will they invalidate their entitlement under the scheme?

Mark Hoban: That is an important point. I am sure that a range of issues will emerge as we move through the scheme's design to payment. People who have had Equitable Life policies throughout the period and bought them post-September 1992 will receive compensation even if they have exited from Equitable Life's current arrangements. I hope that that provides clarification.

Jonathan Evans: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, perhaps later, to issue a fuller statement on his very important announcement in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood)? I intended to raise the matter on Third Reading. There is no doubt that many policyholders will be delighted to hear the news, and it should be made more widely available to all policyholders so that they are aware of it.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right. The old saying is that the best way of keeping a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who are in contact with Equitable Life policyholders will take the opportunity to write to them, and I hope that the Equitable Members Action Group, which is the main lobbying organisation on behalf of policyholders, will also take the opportunity to pass the information on to its members. It is important information for them, and we will continue to make policyholders aware of it as we communicate further details of the scheme.
	Before that series of interventions, I was reflecting on amendment 8, and I want to say a little about why we are treating the with-profits annuitants differently from others in regard to payments. We need to recognise that the nature of the policies of that particular group of people is very different from that of other Equitable Life policyholders. Their losses relate not just to what has happened in the past, but to what will happen in the future. They will continue to receive a stream of income over a number of years from their with-profits annuity policy. We are now able to match that stream of income with their historic losses and their future losses. It makes sense for them to receive their payments in a way that reflects the income stream that they have lost, which is why they will receive their losses in regular payments over their lifetime.
	In the light of that, I hope that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras will decide not to press amendment 8 to a vote, because the approach that he suggests is not appropriate for with-profits annuitants. We are determined to make swift progress on making payments to other policyholders, however, and they will get lump sum payments that will be free of tax.

Christopher Leslie: The Minister has put on record some helpful information about the timing of the payment arrangements, and I do not think that it would add a great deal if we were to press the amendment to the vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Amendment proposed: 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert-
	"In determining the amount of the payments that it is appropriate for the Treasury to authorise under subsection (2), the Treasury must have regard to such matters relating to the adverse effects of that maladministration on those persons and the proper calculation of their resulting losses as have been determined by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to be relevant to and appropriate for that calculation.".- (Frank Dobson.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 Question negatived.
	 Amendment made: 6, page 1, line 20, at end insert-
	"( ) The functions of the Director of Savings include anything the Director is appointed by the Treasury to do in connection with payments to which this section applies.".- (Mr Hoban.)
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 68), That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the  Chair .
	 Bill, as amended,  reported .
	 Bill, as amended in the Committee,  considered  .
	 Third  Reading

Mark Hoban: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Government want to see justice for Equitable Life's policyholders, and this is clearly reflected in the actions that we have taken since coming to office. In six short months, the coalition Government have made real progress towards implementing their pledge to make
	"fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders...for their relative loss as a result of regulatory failure."-[ Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 554, c. 1WS.]
	Since coming to power, we have published the first ever estimates of losses suffered by policyholders, considered representations on them, and endorsed a relative loss figure of £4.3 billion-in line with the parliamentary ombudsman's findings. We have set aside £1.5 billion to make payments, which is more than four times the amount that Sir John Chadwick's methodology produced. This strikes the right balance between fairness to policyholders and fairness to the taxpayer.
	We have announced that we will cover the full losses of those policyholders who have or have had with-profits annuities. We have established an independent commission to assess how best to allocate payments to policyholders. While giving the commission wide discretion, we have made it clear that we do not expect payments to policyholders to be means-tested and that we expect payments to be made to the estates of deceased policyholders. Our goal is to make the first payments to policyholders towards the middle of next year. This is a huge achievement, of which we can be rightly proud.
	The Bill is a vital part of this work. It gives the Treasury the authority to incur expenditure to make payments to policyholders. Without this Bill, redress for those who have suffered so long would be impossible. That is why we have moved so quickly. To delay further action would be unfair to those who have already waited over a decade for a resolution. The sooner this legislation is in place, the sooner we can bring their suffering to an end. I know that right hon. and hon. Members of all parties fully support us on that.
	We announced as part of the spending review that it was our intention to make these payments tax free. Today's Bill gives the Treasury the power to make an order allowing these payments to be disregarded for tax. The payments will also be disregarded for the purposes of tax credits.
	Finally, the Bill enables the Government to consider what effect, if any, these payments will have on people's eligibility for certain means-tested, state-funded support. I outlined in the debate on the final group of amendments how this treatment will apply to welfare benefits. We are still considering how the payments will affect support such as social care.
	We have concluded that lump-sum payments made as part of this scheme will be disregarded as income for the purposes of assessing eligibility for means-tested benefits. Instead, they will be classed as capital. Capital limits do not immediately cut off eligibility for benefits; they work on a sliding scale, gradually reducing support for individuals with larger assets. It is unlikely that many recipients who would otherwise have been eligible for means-tested benefits will receive payments that dramatically affect this eligibility. For with-profits annuitants, regular payments will be treated as income in a similar way to the lost income stream that these payments represent.
	Earlier today, hon. Members debated in detail a Government amendment that gives National Savings & Investments the power to deliver payments. That being a large and potentially complex task, it is essential that the delivery partner has the experience and expertise to do the job properly and cost-effectively. When judged against these criteria and the imperative for payments to begin as soon as possible, National Savings & Investments was the strongest candidate, which was the motivation for including this amendment in the Bill.
	I am aware of the concerns that hon. Members have voiced about the Bill's brevity. It is, indeed, a two-clause Bill and it does not include detail about the payments scheme that would allow Parliament to scrutinise and debate the issue. I would like to point out that there is no requirement for the Bill to do so; it is simply an enabling Bill to give the Treasury the power to make these payments to policyholders-and nothing more. The scheme design does not require statutory footing and, of course, before the scheme design is finalised, we first need to make progress on this Bill. If we had waited for the scheme design to be finalised before proceeding with the Bill, it would have taken far longer before we could start to make payments. What the Treasury has sought to do is to work on as many streams as possible in parallel, within the constraints of our legal powers.
	Let me reassure all hon. Members that I am fully committed to transparency at every stage of this process. I understand and sympathise with Members' concerns, and for this reason I will publish a document setting out the scheme design in detail and lay it before Parliament for full scrutiny. Following the independent commission's publication of its final advice, I will make a statement setting out the Government's response.
	I also know that Members are keen to discover whether a robust appeals process will be in place, one that will allow policyholders who believe their payment has been wrongly calculated to challenge this judgment. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we will be appointing a review panel, independent of NS&I, with full powers to consider any such challenges and to overturn any decision that it finds incorrect. As I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in an earlier debate, the costs of that appeal mechanism will not be borne by the compensation pot. We want to ensure that policyholders get the full value of the money that we set aside for compensation payments.
	In the interests of transparency, I should like to set out the next steps in the process of resolving this long and complex issue. As a starting point, I hope that today's Bill will receive Royal Assent by the end of the year. That will allow the delivery partner to start preparations early in the new year, and to be well placed to make the first payments by the middle of the year, as is our ambition. It is important for the delivery partner to start work early, in order to accelerate the timetable to make those payments. The independent commission is due to report to me in late January and, following that, we will incorporate its recommendations in the design of the scheme, which will then be scrutinised by Parliament.
	As I said earlier, I would encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether they are new to the issue or have run with it for many years, as so many of us have, to engage with the commission in its work. It is independent of the Treasury, and the three commissioners are very experienced. I believe that they have the expertise and skills to design a proper payments scheme for policyholders. However, they would welcome contributions from everybody who has participated in the debate, not just in the House but across the country over the past decade, to enable them to produce the best possible scheme design, which meets as far as possible the aspirations of people who have had policies with Equitable Life.
	Since the Government took office in May, we have come a long way. We have achieved far more in recent months than was achieved in recent years. We have quantified relative loss suffered because of maladministration. We have identified the losses that policyholders have suffered on a bottom-up basis, by groups of policies and by age. For the first time, a proper understanding has been established of the losses suffered. That is a tribute to the hard work conducted by Towers Watson and others to develop that estimate. As a consequence of the spending review, we have been able to assess the quantum of losses, to decide the loss figure that we accept. We have accepted the ombudsman's view that relative loss is the best guide. We set aside £1.5 billion of funding to cover the cost of the payments scheme. We have announced that the losses of post 1992 with-profits annuitants will be covered entirely by the Government. We have also established an independent commission to advise on the allocation of funding to not-with-profits annuitants policyholders.
	As a Government, we want to see a swift resolution to this matter. We want the many policyholders who have waited in financial purgatory for so many years, and who have campaigned so hard for justice, to receive the payments that are rightfully theirs. No one could disagree that policyholders have waited too long for justice. Although the debate has been relatively brief, it is not just the tip of the iceberg-to which the hon. Member for Nottingham East referred-as anyone who has participated in the debate will recognise. Passing this important Bill is essential to achieving justice, and I commend it to the House.

Christopher Leslie: The short debate that we have had has covered a set of specific issues, largely arising from the Government's conclusions in the spending review about how to compensate those suffering injustice following maladministration by insurance and financial regulators in the case of Equitable Life. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to talk about the independence of the payment scheme. We have been able to hold the Government's feet to the fire on whether it will match the ombudsman's model. I am glad that the Minister said that he would welcome further comments from her on the design of the compensation scheme. It will be interesting to see whether she endorses it as being the fair and transparent scheme that many Members have pledged to deliver.
	We have also discussed the appeals procedure and the timing of payments. In response to the second ombudsman's report, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), offered an apology for the past failings of the regulators. That is an important point, which is separate from the question of whether the regulators can be held fully or only partly responsible for the losses incurred by the maverick actions of Equitable Life's management during the 1980s and early 1990s. I am sorry that, at least during this debate, Ministers have not also expressed regret, clearly and on the record, for the part that their party played during the 1980s in failing adequately to establish a regulatory system to prevent the vast bulk of the Equitable Life problems from arising in the first place. I know that it was a long time ago and that none of the current Ministers were in any way responsible, but I think it would have been a helpful gesture to draw a line under the failings that had occurred in the past. After all, Lord Penrose concluded in his inquiry report that Ministers in the late 1980s
	"did not regard the subject"
	of updating life insurance regulation
	"as a high priority for legislation."
	He noted that
	"the Government's objective was to deregulate, to reduce regulatory burdens on business, to avoid interference in private companies, and to let market forces prevail."

Mark Hoban: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to this topic, but we have already clearly expressed our apologies. Unlike the last Government, we immediately accepted all the ombudsman's findings of failure. The hon. Gentleman's party did not even have the courage to do that.

Christopher Leslie: I am glad that the Minister has been able to reiterate points that he did not make in his Third Reading speech. I do not necessarily want to reopen the box entirely, but it is important for both parties to recognise that mistakes have been made, and that things should and could have been done better by those on both sides. In particular, however, I think it is important not to gain the impression that failings did not occur on the watch of the Minister's party. Lord Penrose found that Conservative Ministers
	"argued against reform in the... 1990s",
	and that the United Kingdom "led the resistance" to Europe-wide attempts to update the third life directive. Those who argue that Labour alone fell short in respect of reacting to the Equitable Life debacle should realise that the ideological approach pursued by the Conservatives was absolutely central to causing the mess in the first place.
	As Members know, the last Government would have chosen a different route to compensation. We were anxious that a poorly designed compensation scheme might entail a person-by-person review aimed at disentangling individual losses one by one, examining more than 30 million investment decisions by 1.5 million people over 20 years. That would have been a mammoth administrative task. Moreover, the ombudsman had implied that individuals would need to prove that they had relied on the regulatory returns and had been misled as a result. The last Government did not believe that such an approach could be feasible.
	It was for those reasons that Sir John Chadwick was asked to explore a more realistic and reliable payment scheme methodology. He concluded that the Treasury should deal with the issue by grouping cases into about 20 broad categories of policyholders who were in similar circumstances. The payment scheme would then deduce the relative loss in each category in comparison with the outcomes of a basket of other policies that had not suffered from the same regulatory failings. The Government have clearly embarked on a different course, although they have taken up some of Chadwick's pragmatic suggestions about the automaticity of compensation. We genuinely hope that that will work.
	We are pleased that this short paving Bill is before the House, because we feel strongly that the matter should be resolved. The Committee stage gave us an opportunity to question the Government on several aspects of their approach, and I am glad that we have had an opportunity to draw them out further today.
	Let me end by simply raising a question mark over the words of Ministers before May, when the general election took place, in comparison with their actions today. Many hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders-possibly as many as 1 million-were led to believe that in signing the EMAG pledge, Ministers were supporting a particular outcome that may not now arrive. Most Conservative Members signed that pledge. They pledged to their constituents that
	"if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme-independent of government-as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman."
	As the payment decisions are made in the next few years and the cheques finally start to arrive, EMAG members and policyholders who are not in line to receive 100% compensation for their full relative losses will have to draw their own conclusions as to whether the Government have fulfilled their promises. So far the signs are that many policyholders do not feel that those Members who signed the pledge are keeping their word. They feel that the scheme will fall short of proper compensation and a fair payment scheme.

Jonathan Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charlie Elphicke: rose -

Anne Main: rose-

Christopher Leslie: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) as he has attended the entire debate.

Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that £1.5 billion does not amount to proper compensation. I came to watch the earlier debate when the Minister was the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and he was standing by the Chadwick figure, but the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) now seems to be saying that four times more than the position the Labour party were defending back then is not proper compensation.

Christopher Leslie: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I did not sign the EMAG pledge. I always felt, as did many of my colleagues, that there were real and practical difficulties in raising constituents' hopes in the way that the hon. Gentleman perhaps did. That is a matter for him and his constituents. It is up to him to convince them that the result of these deliberations has been to put in place full and fair compensation in accordance with the pledge. I am simply making the point that this is a matter of honour for those hon. Members who signed the pledge.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I think the hon. Lady was one such Member.

Anne Main: I rise to gently chide the hon. Gentleman. We have had discussions with EMAG representatives, and I do not think they were under any illusions that they were necessarily going to get back every single penny that was lost. I have talked to my local representatives, and I think they are realistic enough to realise that we have done the best we possibly can. I am not happy with the situation for the pre-1992 annuities, but even so, what we are giving them is 100 times better than previously. They look to us to deliver that, but they are realistic enough to know that, in these hard times we cannot give them everything. I think for the hon. Gentleman to say, "I didn't sign the pledge" is just copping out.

Christopher Leslie: I disagree about the pledge, and I did not sign it for particular reasons, but my point is simply that the hon. Lady signed the pledge before the general election and it committed her to a number of things, one of which was somehow to fulfil the aspirations of those policyholders who interpreted the pledge in a particular way. I, too, have met EMAG representatives and they are not as happy and understanding as the hon. Lady suggests.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: Well, if the hon. Lady understands something different, I will give way to her again.

Anne Main: Did those EMAG representatives give the hon. Gentleman some reason to suspect that they were happier with his stance of delivering a much lesser amount?

Christopher Leslie: The difference is that I did not raise people's hopes for electoral purposes-because I wanted to harvest their support-only to dash them after the general election. We are very used to Conservative Members making pledges on a whole series of things-not least student finance, which is quite pertinent right now-and then breaking their promises. I am not saying that Members are necessarily in breach of their pledge. All I am saying is that it is for them to honour it, in accordance with their consciences and what their constituents will say to them as to whether the compensation outcome amounts to a fair payment scheme and proper compensation.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Christopher Leslie: Having clearly touched a nerve, it will be interesting to hear from other Members as well.

Margot James: There is a key point for the victims of this scandal in my constituency of Stourbridge. Most of those whom I have met understand that the commitments that were given always had the proviso of the state of the public finances. That is a very relevant point.
	I wish so much that we could have offered people more, but given the difference between Chadwick's recommendations, which were the baseline, and the £1.5 billion, as well as the state of the public finances, many people who have suffered in this scandal will feel that they have been treated reasonably, although I accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment that the EMAG pressure group is still battling for more. That is its role as a pressure group.

Christopher Leslie: A reasonable point from the hon. Lady. All I am saying is that the pledge that some Members signed did not say explicitly, "As resources allow."  [Interruption.] No, it does not say that in the pledge. The pledge simply says that they will have a fair and transparent payments scheme. I doubt very much that the vast majority of those other policyholders who will not be getting the 100%-clearly it will be welcomed by those with-profits annuitants, who are receiving 100% of their relative losses-but may be receiving, I am told, between 15 and 20% of their relative losses will feel that hon. Members who raised their hopes are actually fulfilling them.

Jonathan Evans: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to his role, but I would have hoped that he had read the ombudsman's report before representing the Opposition at the Dispatch Box. He would have seen that the ombudsman says that the compensation figure must take account of the effect on the public purse.

Christopher Leslie: I completely accept that that is what it says in the detail of the ombudsman's report, but it does not say that in the pledge that the hon. Gentleman signed. In an electoral context, he raised the hopes of many of his constituents. He may be able to face them and say, "Absolutely, I am fulfilling what I promised." If he feels that and they are happy with it, they will re-elect him, and everybody will be happy and ride off into the sunset, but I have a feeling that some policyholders will continue to be discontented with the Government's position. It certainly did not say, either in the manifestos or in the pledge that he signed, perhaps scribbled in a little addendum, "Oh, by the way, we are going to give you only a fraction of the £4.5 billion to £6 billion that you understand as the relative losses." That is simply not there. I am not claiming, because I did not sign that pledge, to have raised those hopes, but Members on the Government Benches did.

Alan Beith: Is it the hon. Gentleman's position that he did not promise anything, he was not going to give anything, Chadwick was the maximum and he might as well vote against the Bill?

Christopher Leslie: Liberal Democrats need to learn that people should not make promises they cannot keep. There is a suggestion that Liberal Democrats in particular have been growing used to making promises that they cannot keep, so the right hon. Gentleman should pause for a moment because his political arguments are haemorrhaging on a number of fronts. That is because some Members raised a series of aspirations before the election, making suggestions and promises, and there are some who will feel that he is now falling short of that. That is the only point that I seek to make. I am not claiming perfection for my behaviour, nor am I claiming in any way that I could fulfil all the hopes of the policyholders, but my point is that Members on the Government Benches did, and they should be hoist on their own petard for signing that EMAG pledge.

Charlie Elphicke: rose-

Christopher Leslie: I give way to my good friend from Dover.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know him to be a generous Member of the House. With his customary generosity, will he acknowledge that the amount is nevertheless three times that which the previous Government said they would have given as compensation?

Christopher Leslie: We will not know that, because Chadwick's report was published after the general election. We had a series of steps that would have then been taken, but history went in a different direction because the spending review and the Budget were undertaken by a different party, not by our party in government. I am not saying that there are magic solutions to this issue. These are complex matters and there are technical reasons for both the methodologies that are being used in the compensation and the timings and the discussions around them. It is important to bear in mind the wider needs of the public purse. We have consistently said that and now the Government have come round to that point of view. I understand why they did.

Mark Hoban: The previous Government took six months to dither over what they would do about the ombudsman's report, whereas we accepted her recommendations straight away-there had been maladministration, there should be compensation for relative loss, and affordability was a key part of her recommendations. We accepted that quickly, whereas his right hon. and hon. Friends sat on their hands.

Christopher Leslie: I disagree with that. The hon. Gentleman certainly did not say before the general election that this would be £1.5 billion- [ Interruption. ] Oh, did he? Where did he say before the general election that this would be £1.5 billion? I shall give way to him if he can give a reference for that. Answer came there none-proof in point that after the general election a different set of expectations was set out by the Government than those that might have been an interpretation of the Minister's words before the election.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Conor Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I have given way to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) several times, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns).

Conor Burns: Will the shadow Minister at least concede that one of the greatest groups of victims-some were in my constituency-were those who died while waiting for his Government to make any progress? This Government should at least be congratulated for getting on and doing something, because in this context something is definitely better than the nothing that was offered by the Opposition.

Christopher Leslie: I am not going to claim that everything in the garden was rosy in the period that elapsed between the findings of the various commissions. Suffice it to say that Penrose spent some two and half years on his inquiry and the ombudsman spent nearly four years on hers. This was not simply a Government issue. There were very complex issues in which a set of decisions had to be resolved. There are perfectly good and sound reasons for some of the time that it took to come to conclusions on these questions. Things could certainly have been handled better; I have already said that this evening.

Marcus Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the inactivity on the matter while his party was in government, particularly during the demise of the Icelandic banking industry, when his Government bailed out many investors who were affected by it at the drop of a hat?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) answers, may I remind the House that this is Third Reading and that it is timed, which means that it will conclude at three minutes past 5? Members who have sat through the debate this afternoon and who wish to speak on Third Reading might not get the opportunity to do so. I shall call Mr Leslie back to the Dispatch Box to respond to the intervention, but perhaps everybody in the Chamber could bear my point in mind.

Christopher Leslie: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is certainly incumbent on us all to be brief as far as we can. I have set out the position as I see it. I know that Government Members will disagree, but I do not wish to impugn their intentions. I was simply seeking to point out that they are held to a pledge that not all Members are held to and that they will be judged on that.
	We are not minded to oppose the legislation this evening. This is a necessary paving Bill, but we accept that the devil will be in the detail and we await the further scrutiny of the measures that will come subsequently.

Nadhim Zahawi: The mere fact that it is 10 November 2010 and I am standing here delivering a speech on Third Reading is something of which I am incredibly proud. This is a sobering Bill, which is long overdue. I thought in Committee that I heard the shadow Minister apologise, but, sadly, I know from listening to his remarks that he obviously has no remorse. Behind him are the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), who have been passionate advocates for the victims of Equitable Life and incredible champions for their cause, and they have had to listen to their Front-Bench spokesman speak with forked tongue. He says, on the one hand, that Labour wants to champion the victims of Equitable Life, many of whom sadly have not survived to see this day, but on the other that it did not promise anything. Labour let the victims down in the previous Parliament and tried to get away with delivering what Chadwick recommended.
	The Front-Bench spokesman for the coalition Government is to be commended, because we are debating a figure that is four times the amount that Chadwick recommended. I remind the House of the economic landscape that we have inherited. We are borrowing £500 million a day; every time we go to bed and wake up in the morning, we have been saddled with another £500 million of debt by the previous Government. Just paying the interest on that debt costs £120 million a day-just to stand still. Against that background, and within six months of this Parliament, we have been able to deliver the Third Reading of this Bill for victims of the Equitable Life tragedy.
	I want to highlight some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), chairman of the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders, has made. He has made some forceful points, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans). It is important to remember what we heard from the Minister about the additional money that will come as a result of the tax treatment of the payments. He would be right to say that he had already shared this information with us but that it was hidden in the detail. That important point needs further airing.
	I repeat a recommendation that I made in Committee, although I know it would be complex: it would be incredibly helpful for us all if the additional benefit for different tax bands provided by that tax treatment could be calculated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East rightly reminded us, many hon. Members signed the pledge on Equitable Life before the election. I am proud that I signed it and many of my colleagues and I believe that we have absolutely delivered on it. There is a lot of detail to get through and we will all work very hard to ensure that we deliver for the victims of Equitable Life. I hope that the shadow Minister will reflect on his remarks and feel that he could take some of them back. I hope also that he will be much more considered next time he speaks on this topic.

Fabian Hamilton: Given the shortage of time I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) reminds us of the daily interest payments on the current national debt and I could respond that if we delayed payments by two days, we might have enough, by his calculations, to pay the pre-1992 annuitants, but I shall not be frivolous.
	In Committee, I might have been a little churlish in my introductory remarks on my amendment, because I really do want to congratulate the Government on what they have done. They have not gone far enough, but they have made progress and I do not want to appear reluctant in congratulating them. Many hon. Members thought I was being reluctant, but my remarks were slightly tongue in cheek. It is good that the Government have introduced a scheme quickly, that payments will be made from next year and that the quantum is now roughly £1.5 billion instead of £0.5 billion-about three times more than Chadwick suggested. That is progress, and many Equitable policyholders will be very pleased.
	I hope the Minister will accept that there is still some injustice, not least for those pre-1992 annuitants, for whom 76 right hon. and hon. Members voted for my amendment. As the Minister knows, I do not accept his argument on that. I hope he will understand that injustice still exists, that we will have to deal with it in some way or another if we can, and that EMAG will continue to fight its corner, as it must, until it sees justice for all policyholders and annuitants who took out policies with the discredited Equitable Life.
	I and my co-chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), together with the secretary of the all-party group, have written to Ann Abraham, the ombudsman, asking her a number of questions. We hope that in due course we will receive a response, which we would want to share with the House or at least with the rest of the all-party group. On that subject, I hope the Minister will be able to accept my previous invitation to attend one of our meetings at a time convenient to him, so that we can discuss the details of the scheme, understand more clearly how it will work and perhaps add some thoughts of our own on how to make it work more effectively.
	Finally, I hope that in passing the Bill today and making it become law, and in paving the way for the compensation scheme, we as parliamentarians all appreciate the lessons that have been learned from the poor or non-existent regulation of companies such as Equitable Life so that future annuitants and policyholders never have to suffer in this way again.

Bob Blackman: I am privileged to follow my co-chair of the all-party group that is seeking justice for the policyholders who were so wrongfully treated by the previous Government. We can see where interest in supporting the policyholders lies. It is on the coalition Government Benches. Sadly, with the exception of those hon. Members who are present, there is a total lack of interest among Opposition Members in listening to or participating in the debate. That is typical of what has gone on for the past 10 years. It is not fair to compare a potential failure to regulate with the fact of conniving with the regulator and the company to prevent people from receiving compensation. That is precisely what the previous Government did.
	I congratulate the Treasury team on taking swift, firm and transparent action to ensure that we can pay swiftly those who have been wronged. That is not being done as quickly as I would like, but we have to go through the mechanisms of government and legislation. We must make sure that the people who have been so badly wronged are compensated properly, and that that process is fair and is seen to be independent of Government.
	The debate that we had this afternoon in Committee clarified a number of issues. I trust that the people who are watching from home, thinking about how much money they will receive and when they will receive it, will be more satisfied that the Government and the Treasury team have taken on board the lobbying and the actions undertaken by Members, primarily on the Government Benches, to make sure that the scheme is put in place as swiftly as possible and pays the maximum possible.
	We should remember that the Bill will enable the Treasury to pay the money out as swiftly as possible. It does not deal with the sums that are due to be paid out, although the Government accept completely the ombudsman's view that the compensation would be £4.6 billion if the public purse had permitted that. That is massively different from what Chadwick recommended.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the previous Government had acted, and acted sooner, more compensation would have been payable to the victims?

Bob Blackman: If the Labour Government had acted when they should have done, £1.5 billion would have represented 100% compensation for everyone that had been so badly wronged. However, the dragging of feet over the past 10 years means that we are in the parlous state in which people who should be due their compensation are dying every day, and every day that we delay means that, sadly, more people will not receive their compensation.

James Morris: Many Members have talked about the moral imperative behind sorting out the situation, but does my hon. Friend agree that moral intervention requires practical Government action, which is what we are seeing today?

Bob Blackman: Indeed. That is the clear duty of the coalition Government, and that is why I wholeheartedly praise the Treasury team for demonstrating such action.
	There has been no greater issue than the tax treatment of the compensation that is due, and I congratulate once again the Treasury on that measure, because it will add to the compensation. Many people sitting at home will have been calculating their compensation less the amount of tax that they regularly pay. Now they know that they will receive a far bigger tax-free income, and that is something else of which we can be proud.
	I would have much preferred more money to be provided. Would not we all? But would not we all rather be in a position whereby the Treasury was not almost bankrupt and we had not been left with a massive deficit? The all-party group will continue to ensure that, in this process, the Treasury will be able to communicate with all parliamentarians, and EMAG will be able to lobby to ensure that, when individuals begin to receive their payments, which will be the acid test, they feel satisfied that the wrong that has been done to them has been compensated. That is something of which we would all be proud. We can take great pride in the fact that the process is happening quickly, with purpose and transparency, and that the pledge that we all signed is being honoured. Some people may say, "It is not being honoured in full," but it is, and clearly the economic circumstances of the day dictate what we can do.
	As I said in an earlier intervention, we should revisit the position in five years' time when the economy will have recovered and we will be in a much stronger position because of the coalition Government's decisions. There may be a case then for reconsidering whether the people who took out policies but will not retire for five, 10, 15, even 25 years should receive a top-up. That is a reasonable proposal, and it is sensible for the coalition Government to consider it.
	I commend the Bill to the House. I support it 101%, and the Treasury team are to be congratulated not only on what they have done, but on the clear answers that they have given to the points that have been made as we have considered the Bill in detail.

Michael Weir: No one is going to oppose the Bill's Third Reading, for the simple reason that, if it fell, no one would receive any money. None the less, dealing with the Bill has in many ways been a frustrating experience. It is a paving Bill, as others have said, and the big elephant in the room is the cap and its effect on the overall amount of money available.
	It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have moved swiftly, and that is welcome. After 10 years spent arguing about the matter, we are finally getting somewhere with it, but to some extent the Bill is a missed opportunity, because of the cap and the inability to do anything about the Treasury's decision to introduce one. The effect will be dramatic. Nobody is arguing that, in the current situation, everybody should receive all the money to which they might be entitled. Even EMAG accepts that there will be, as the group put it, a "haircut", but some people will lose 80% of the compensation that they should have received, and that is not fair.
	There are other inequities involved. I was frankly baffled by the Minister's mental contortions over the exclusion of pre-1992 with-profits annuitants. As I understand his remarks, we are now in the position where maladministration is okay as long as one does not know about it and where it becomes an issue only when one does know about it. That seems utterly perverse. By resorting to these measures, the Government have undermined what could have been a very good end to this long-running matter.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is right-had the previous Labour Government grasped the nettle at an early stage, this issue could have been dealt with much more cheaply. A lot of the fault over the cost lies with the previous Government's unwillingness to do anything about it. Many of us have spent years in this House arguing that they should have done so; I have not changed my position over that period.
	I think that there should be compensation, and I welcome what has been done. It is not sufficient, however, and many policyholders will still feel very aggrieved, and rightly so. It could have been dealt with better had it been done differently, perhaps with a larger cap or payments over a longer period. I can give half a thanks for the Bill, but I think that the Government will face problems in future because of their failure fully to deal with the issue.

Alan Beith: I must declare an interest in that I have a very small Equitable Life policy-so small that I do not think I will qualify for any repayment. My concern is for the large number of my constituents whose entire retirement is dependent on Equitable Life policies. The list of the people who write to me includes many of those who have contributed most to the community over the years: that is a striking feature of the names that I see in the correspondence. Many of them will still be angry at how little they are going to get for all the savings they put by.
	The first thing to remember is that the primary responsibility for this situation rests with the utterly irresponsible management of Equitable Life. In many ways, that was a disgrace to the mutual movement. It underlines a weakness in the mutual movement, of which I am very supportive in general, which is that executives who want to advance their own careers favour the acquiring of new members at the expense of the interests of existing members. It happened at Equitable Life, it happened at Northern Rock, and it happens in building societies; it is something that the mutual movement has to watch very carefully.
	The regulatory failure that occurred is the basis of the Bill, which I hope we shall give a Third Reading. That regulatory failure has not led to action within anything like the time scale that it should have done. A decade has gone by: people have got older and people have died while action should have been taken.
	I very much welcome the action that the Government have taken, very quickly, within a short time of their coming into office. I welcome the further announcements that the Minister has made in saying that there will be no tax liability and no effect on tax credits, and that special considerable will be given to the social care situation, bearing in mind that quite a lot of Equitable Life policyholders are now in social care, either at home or in residential care, and their cases need to be considered very carefully. I am grateful to the ombudsman for the work that she has put into this matter, and for her persistence in doing so, and to EMAG, which has done such a tremendous job.
	This is not full redress even for all the regulatory failure that occurred, and I would not expect policyholders to be satisfied that they have got all that they are morally entitled to. However, the fact that the Government have moved quickly to ensure that payments will be made makes me feel entirely justified in going into the Lobby in support of the Bill. I am rather depressed that the response of Labour Front Benchers has been to say to the Government, "You gave people the impression that they might get more, and even though you're giving three times more than Labour would even have contemplated, we, the Labour party, did not promise anything at all." We had to act, and I am grateful for the fact that Ministers are doing so.

Mark Durkan: This is a Third Reading debate, and I do not believe that the House should, or will, divide on the Bill at this stage.
	As we have rehearsed in debates not only today but on other occasions, this is a can that was kicked in front of the Government for a very long time, to the frustration and disgust of very many people. I am glad that although not everyone who has lost out will be doing handstands, we no longer have the degree of hand-wringing from Government that we had for too many years.
	In the earlier debates, I, like others, had some questions and criticisms. Those criticisms were because of the inadequacies and arbitrary limits in the provisions that have been put in place. Some of us have genuine concerns that, notwithstanding how much better the provisions are than those the previous Government were going to make, we as a Parliament should be careful about creating a situation in which we have a cap one on hand and a cut-off on the other, which together will conspire to create a selective injustice against some people.
	When the Financial Secretary responded to debates on amendments, he made it clear that assessments of pre-1992 annuitants could be made to allow cases to be identified in which people had benefited from the inadequate regulation rather than losing out. In those cases, we should better provide for a scheme that will deal with everyone on a case-by-case basis, rather than risk class exclusion by assumption, which is what the cut-off provides for. I ask the Government to consider that further as they take the scheme forward.
	I appreciate the Financial Secretary's indications that added consideration has been given to tax treatment and tax credits, and to the social care implications complications that could arise. I give the Government credit for that sensitivity and responsiveness.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) rightly warned the Liberal Democrats to be careful not to make promises that they cannot keep. As a friend of the Labour party, but someone who was frustrated sitting on the Benches with Labour Members during the last Parliament, may I say that I hope Labour's Front Benchers also learn to be careful about making arguments that they cannot sustain? He has unfortunately been left in a position of trying to criticise the Bill, but he could not even afford to divide the Committee on straightforward, pure amendments. I feel sorry for him that the last Government's record put him in that position, and that he was left to make arguments that ended up, with all due respect, veering towards cynicism while the rest of us were trying to keep our arguments within the realms of legitimate criticism. However, I accept fully that he is not responsible for that position.
	It is important to remember that this is not just a matter of what one Government or another did. The debates have shown that many Members of all parties have met constituents and carried their concerns. People have suffered compound distress, and that is what cannot be quantified. Someone might quantify what amount of money should be due to people and how much we can afford to give them, but we cannot calculate the compound distress caused to people not just by their loss but by the long indifference and inertia.
	I acknowledged earlier the work in the previous Parliament done by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), and we all acknowledge the work in this Parliament of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has served notice that he will continue it. It is also appropriate to acknowledge the huge role played in the previous Parliament by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Perhaps it is right that a Member from one of the smaller parties says so; as he is currently a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he may not be in a position to participate in the active, vocal way that he so often did.
	Many of us have criticised Sir John Chadwick today and at other times. I remember the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham reminding me of a line that I used to hear about Fanny Craddock. Apparently she used to offer some chicken recipe, and the first line of the recipe was, "First, catch your chicken." The hon. Gentleman and the all-party Equitable Life group had that difficulty with Sir John Chadwick, in trying to get him in and ensure that he and the Government properly engaged with them. Although many people will see shortcomings in the provisions, the fact is they represent huge and welcome progress. Some redress will now be given to people, and the quicker that that can happen the better.
	None the less, we need to iron out any inconsistencies. Some of us are worried about something the Minister said earlier and the sort of precedence that it might create. He said that because people did not know about the maladministration, they can be deemed not to have suffered the same loss as those who did know. That is not an argument that I would ever want to become a rule of thumb for any such scheme again.

David Rutley: Like many others hon. Members, I have had a huge amount of correspondence on this issue. I have also met many of the policyholders and heard their sad tales and the way in which this drawn-out saga has affected their lives. I congratulate the Equitable Members Action Group on its hard-fought campaign and commend the great work that has been going on in the all-party parliamentary group. That has given many of us in this House, particularly new Members, an awareness of the situation. None the less, it has been a drawn-out saga, and I am delighted that the Minister has taken very speedy action to address the outstanding issues. He has made this Bill a priority and put forward £1.5 billion to assist with compensation at a very difficult time for the economy. Those are genuinely positive developments. As my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) have said, we have also had clarity on the tax treatment, which is welcomed by all of us.
	I congratulate the Minister on his quick choice of National Savings & Investment to lead forward the speedy implementation. At the time of his ministerial statement, I remember his assuring the House that there would be a clear communication plan to help him inform policyholders on developments. I continue to urge both him and his Treasury officials to learn from previous compensation schemes to ensure that this one has flawless implementation. That is what the policyholders deserve after years of waiting. We cannot let them down at the point of implementation and operation.
	Although it is essential to have clear information available through e-mails and websites, we must not forget the age profile of the people whom we seek to help. They are, typically, older-much older-and will need written communication and properly manned contact centres to ensure that they get the customer service that they need.

Richard Graham: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is a real scandal that no settlement was made during the long years of the previous Government while many thousands of innocent victims, including my mother, died, and that that should remain on the previous Government's conscience for ever?

David Rutley: I agree. It is a tragedy that this has taken this long. Today's debate has been reasonable, but I felt let down by the uncharacteristic tone that was struck by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).
	 One hour  having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 14 September).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

European Union Economic Governance

Dawn Primarolo: I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any of the amendments.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents (a) 9433/10, Commission Communication on reinforcing economic policy co-ordination, (b) 11807/10, Commission Communication on enhancing economic policy co-ordination for stability, growth and jobs - tools for stronger EU economic governance, (c) 14496/10, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) amending Regulation (EC) No. 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, (d) 14497/10, Proposal for a Council Directive on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States, (e) 14498/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, (f) 14512/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, (g) 14515/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and (h) 14520/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the15 European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies; notes the Report from the Task Force on Economic Governance in the European Union; notes with approval that budgetary and fiscal information will continue to be presented to Parliament before being given to EU20 institutions; and approves the Government's position, as endorsed by the Task Force that any sanctions proposed should not apply to the United Kingdom in consideration of Protocol 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
	I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's position on the Commission documents to be debated this evening and our broader position on the co-ordination of economic policy in the EU. As right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware, the European Council last month agreed the report of the EU Economic Governance Task Force chaired by Herman Van Rompuy, and we support its work and conclusions, none of which encroaches on Parliament's economic sovereignty. I want to be clear about that so that there can be no confusion about our position.
	Let me deal first with surveillance. Macro-economic surveillance examines the budget plans of member states, and has been around for more than a decade. There is nothing new in that, and a number of international bodies do the same, such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. Does the fact that the EU is doing so mean that we will be subject to sanctions? No, it does not, because under protocol 15 of the existing treaty, sanctions do not apply to us.

William Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the same Mr Van Rompuy has today issued a vicious attack on Eurosceptics throughout Europe, saying that what they argued amounts to a national lie?

Mark Hoban: I have not seen Mr Van Rompuy's comments. As hon. Members will recognise, I have been rather tied up in the Chamber for most of this afternoon.
	Let me continue to make the Government's position clear. Will we have to present our Budget to Europe before we present it to the House? No. Will we have to give Europe access to information for budgetary surveillance that is not similarly shared with organisations such as the IMF, or that is not publicly available on the internet? Again, the answer is no. Will powers over our Budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? Again, the answer is no.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend understand that many people have lost confidence in assurances given whenever a new European treaty is discussed that there will be no loss of sovereignty? Ever since we went into the Common Market, the British public have been told at every stage along the way, "Actually, we're not giving up any sovereignty. This new treaty doesn't give anything away," but people have found time and again that these treaties have done just that. Does my hon. Friend understand people's concerns that although the powers in question do not apply to the UK at the moment, they may well do so in future, as the European Union is clearly looking at extending sanctions to non-eurozone countries as well?

Mark Hoban: Nothing in the documents before us today does what my hon. Friend suggests. People should listen and read the documents to which we have subscribed, and understand how firm and robust the Government have been in defending our economic sovereignty.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: But does Mr Van Rompuy's report not suggest that there should be a binding minimum set of requirements for national fiscal frameworks that would apply to all member states?

Mark Hoban: I think my hon. Friend is reading an earlier draft of the report, because we amended that language at the latest ECOFIN. I will come to this point in a minute, but we believe that fiscal frameworks should be political agreements and should not be driven by directives or regulations.

John Redwood: Will the Minister please confirm that the directive on budgetary frameworks for all member states will apply to the United Kingdom, that the second regulation on budgetary surveillance for all member states applies to the United Kingdom, and that the regulation for enforcement for all member states also applies to the United Kingdom? There are twin proposals in each case, some of which apply only to euro members and some of which affect all member states. Surely the Minister must confirm that that is a massive extension of European economic government, and the UK has to comply with a lot of it.

Mark Hoban: There is nothing new in the macro-economic surveillance processes outlined in the document and, as I have said, we are exempt from the sanctions regime that the Commission and others have proposed, which applies only to eurozone countries. Let me now make some progress.
	We need to recognise that there are lessons to be learned from the economic crisis, but one lesson that stands out that is relevant to the debate this evening and to the documents is that in an open, global economy, no economy exists in isolation. The failures of economic policy in one country can be exported to other nations, and the imbalances in one economy can have an impact on others. Imbalances such as excessive domestic demand and growth can lead to asset bubbles, an over-reliance on exports or divergence in competition across countries. It is in all our interests to improve co-ordination and co-operation in policy making, to tackle those imbalances and increase the resilience and strength of the global economy.
	However, in our view, increasing co-ordination and co-operation has to be consistent with national sovereignty and the accountability of Parliament. It is those principles that frame our response to the documents and our response to the global economic crisis. There is an intense global debate about those topics in the G20, the IMF and the OECD, and in Europe. We take part in those debates because, as an open economy, we have a strong interest in economic stability. We are acutely aware that imbalances and problems in one economy can have a spill-over effect in another.

Peter Bone: Is the Financial Secretary saying that the taskforce document that I have, dated 21 October, has been rewritten? It concludes:
	"Endorsement by the European Council of the recommendations in the present report will contribute to strengthening economic governance in the EU".
	It clearly says "in the EU" as a whole.

Mark Hoban: But the sanctions regime relates only to eurozone countries, and no sanctions can be imposed on the UK. All that the document is referring to is continuation of the macro-economic surveillance that has been taking place over the past 10 years.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making his case persuasively, but will he assist me? The same document from Mr Van Rompuy, dated 21 October-I take it that that is the latest report-clearly states in paragraph 34:
	"The Task Force recommends deeper macro-economic surveillance with the introduction of a new mechanism underpinned by a new legal framework based on Article 121"
	of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union alongside the stability and growth pact
	"applying to all EU Member States".
	Perhaps my hon. Friend will help the House by telling us a little about that.

Mark Hoban: I know that that paragraph has caused some interest, but many people stop reading after
	"by a new legal framework".
	I am grateful that my hon. Friend did not fall into that trap. The provision is based on existing treaties, and it is about macro-economic surveillance. A number of organisations conduct macro-economic surveillance of the UK economy, and there is nothing new in that.

Michael Connarty: I hope that the Financial Secretary realises that we are here to support him in a sensible approach to economic surveillance. Does it not seem rather silly for people to say that a country that is in partnership with many other countries should not be interested if any of those countries are profligate? Clearly, good surveillance and good economic policies throughout the partnership are good for the UK.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I am about to come to that, so his intervention is timely. Given the degree of integration of the European economy, it is in our national interest to support work that looks at the causes of instability and to have in place action to help to tackle them. Over the summer, there have been two parallel processes in Europe. The Commission has its own work stream, which is summarised in the documents before us. However, member states have participated in a separate strand of work on the co-ordination of economic policies under the chairmanship of Herman Van Rompuy. Many of the issues covered are the same, but there are essential differences between the two streams. The Commission's documents detail solutions, and the Van Rompuy work reflects the political agreements reached between member states. The next step is to bring the Commission's proposals into line with the taskforce's recommendations.
	I shall deal in more detail with three aspects of the taskforce's work.

Bernard Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend giving an assurance that not only are there no sanctions-we understand that-but there is absolutely no increase in EU jurisdiction over the British Budget-making process?

Mark Hoban: No, there is not, and I shall come to that in more detail. As far as I am aware, there is no difference in the power that the House has to set the Budget for the United Kingdom.

Bernard Jenkin: I am sorry, but I must insist on the Minister giving way again. Is there any increase in EU jurisdiction over the British Budget-making process as a result of these arrangements? Yes or no?

Mark Hoban: I do not believe that there is.
	Let me deal with the three aspects. In every international economic debate, the issue of increased co-operation and co-ordination arises. At last month's G20 Finance Ministers conference, the focus was on exchange rates and current account surpluses. At the IMF annual meeting in early October, there was considerable debate about tackling deficits. Those discussions of macro-economic policy are not a new feature of the crisis. For example, since its inception, the IMF has undertaken regular reviews under article 4 of macro-economic policies and made recommendations on policy response, but they are not binding. The EU has had similar procedures in place for a decade. It is in all our interests for there to be economic stability in Europe, and the process needs to be strengthened. What we are doing is simply renewing the existing framework in the light of the economic crisis and updating that tools that we have, to ensure that we can do what we need to do. The measure will broaden the scope of surveillance, but, as far as the UK is concerned, it will not weaken the sovereignty of this Parliament.
	Risks to stability often flow from imbalances in the economy, and it is important to look at factors such as current account balances, labour market flexibility and competitiveness across the European Union and to be able to identify problems that could undermine stability. Macro-economic surveillance has an important role to play as an early-warning system.

Mark Hendrick: rose -

John Redwood: rose -

Mark Hoban: I should like to make a bit more progress on this point.
	It is right that we should co-operate with this process, but our co-operation should be consistent with the fiscal sovereignty of the UK. The information that we provide to assist with the surveillance will always be information that has been made available to this House before it is passed to the Commission. Everything that the Commission gets will have been in the public domain, to the extent that a member of the public will have been able to unearth the same data using Google, albeit with less efficiency.

Mark Hendrick: The information might be available elsewhere, but the Minister will know that, as a result of the proposed new regulation Com. (2010)526, there will be an obligation for the UK to provide far more information than it has done in the past. There may not be penalties involved, and we may well run up budget deficits or levels of debt that were unacceptable to the Commission-I am sure we can do that-but the point is that this country will be obliged to provide far more information formally to the Commission than it has in the past. In my view, that constitutes a degree of transfer of power to the Commission.

Mark Hoban: Let me repeat that this involves information that is already out there in the public domain. It is information that will already have been made available through, for example, the House of Commons Library, the Budget documents, the Red Book or the Green Book. It is information that is already out there, so I do not believe that supplying it will be a problem.

Mark Hendrick: The point is not that the information will have been made available elsewhere; it is that there will be an obligation on the Government themselves to make it available. If the Commission wanted to go out and find it elsewhere, I am sure that it would do so, but there will now be a new obligation on the Government, as a result of a new treaty, to give it information that they were not previously required to give.

Mark Hoban: I simply do not take the view that giving the Commission more information is going to be a problem. This goes back to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who asked whether there is to be an increase in EU jurisdiction as a result of this measure. No, there is not. All that the EU will do is make recommendations, but they will not bind us or be imposed on us. We can simply ignore them. There will be no increase in EU jurisdiction as a consequence of this measure.

William Cash: rose -

John Redwood: rose -

Mark Hoban: I am being bombarded by requests to give way. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

William Cash: The explanatory memorandum dealing with the jurisdictional question, which was supplied to the European Scrutiny Committee on 23 October, states, under the heading "Impact on United Kingdom Law":
	"The Regulations once adopted would be 'binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States'. However, in accordance with Article 1 of the proposed Regulation, the Regulation on enforcement measures will apply (only) to the Member States whose currency is the euro."
	That is made absolutely clear by the Minister's own document that he supplied to the Committee.

Mark Hoban: Hon. Members should think about this carefully. All that we are doing is providing more information to the Commission, and it is information that is already in the public domain and that has already been presented to Parliament.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that there are two big new regulations that relate directly to the United Kingdom? One relates to budgetary surveillance on all member states, and the other relates to enforcement against "macro-economic imbalances", as the Commission so elegantly describes them. These are new powers in new regulations. Why are the Government consenting to them?

Mark Hoban: The enforcement point does not apply to the United Kingdom as a consequence of protocol 15 of the existing treaty framework, because we have opted out of that part. My right hon. Friend is knowledgeable about these things, and he will recognise that the Commission makes proposals, and that ECOFIN and the European Council have set out a clear policy framework on this, as reflected in the conclusions of the Van Rompuy taskforce, which make it very clear that sanctions do not apply in the UK.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Hoban: Let me make some more progress; otherwise, hon. Members will not have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Let me continue for a few more moments.
	Many organisations and individuals, including the IMF and the OECD, scrutinise our economy and our budgets. Many make recommendations or, as happened recently, praise our fiscal consolidation plans. We have nothing to hide from any of these bodies that want to look at what we announce to Parliament or at the economic figures published through the Office for National Statistics or through Departments. It is our decision whether or not we listen to their advice. The UK will continue to prepare its Budget independently; others can make recommendations about it, but, crucially, we are under no obligation to take action and, by virtue of our opt-out, we are not subject to sanctions. Any recommendations, as with those made by any other body, will remain just that. It will be down to the Treasury and Parliament, not to the EU, to construct our Budget.

Lady Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, these regulations are entirely binding on the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assure us that, if the Government decline to give the information requested under these regulations, the European Commission will not take enforcement proceedings against the UK Government for not complying with them?

Mark Hoban: I do not see the point of not sending information that is already in the public domain. Why would we be so churlish as not to send out stuff that could be got from Google or from the Library or by tabling a written question to the Prime Minister?

Andrew Percy: I am getting a little confused. If the information is already in the public domain and any organisation can find it, and if we do not have to listen to any recommendations made, what is the point of our agreeing to this?

Mark Hoban: Given that the process is very straightforward, I begin to wonder why it is causing so much excitement. The reality is that the information is already available and the recommendations do not apply to us. The enforcement mechanism applies to eurozone states; they are subject to sanctions, but we have a carve-out from that because of protocol 15.

Michael Connarty: May I suggest to the Minister that one of the attractions of the new procedure is that every country in Europe will have to carry this out? They would find out well before any crisis-as we saw in Greece, for example-that they were in trouble. It is a little bit of information to give and a lot to get back. I think that the "Euro-loony party" contingent should leave the Conservative party, so that people with some common sense can deal with Europe sensibly.

Mark Hoban: I am not going to go down that route, but it is important that information be available. Over the course of the financial crisis-not just in the EU, but globally-we have seen the importance of understanding structural imbalances and their impact on other economies. This is an important strand of debate and it will be continued when the G20 meets later this week. It was certainly an important strand in the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting last month, and, indeed, in the IMF's annual meeting in October. There is nothing new in discussing these issues.
	There is an existing mechanism for surveillance in place through the broad economic policy guidelines, but the warning mechanism has been used only twice: it was used for Ireland in 2001, and Greece received a warning in February this year. An improved mechanism would help towards achieving greater economic stability and it is particularly important for the eurozone, where the effects of imbalances and instability have a greater impact on its members, as has been apparent in recent months. That is why eurozone member states support a sanctions regime, penalising eurozone members whose economic policies undermine the stability of the currency and the eurozone economy. The sanctions do not apply to us, as I have said. I give way-

Mark Reckless: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I note that the Minister has been on his feet for 21 minutes and has attended most assiduously to a number of interventions, and that is perfectly in order. However, I emphasise that there is an hour and a half for this debate, and a substantial number of Back-Bench Members have indicated to me that they wish to speak. It would be a very sad and unsatisfactory state of affairs if contributions from those on the Front Bench were to exceed in total those from Back Benchers. On that basis, I feel sure that the Minister, who is an adroit fellow, will be bringing his remarks to a close ere long.

Mark Hoban: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for that encouragement and guidance, and I apologise for being generous in taking interventions. Let me make rapid progress.
	On the issue of sanctions, the same principle applies for those eurozone countries that are in breach of the stability and growth pact excess deficit procedures. In the run-up to the crisis, there was a lack of fiscal discipline, for those inside and outside the euro. Despite the existence of the stability and growth pact and the excess deficit procedure, the eurozone was still undermined by a failure to exert fiscal discipline, and a number of member states in the eurozone have to take tough action to tackle the deficit.
	To avoid a recurrence, the Commission and member states in the eurozone have sought to reduce the discretion on the application of the sanction process. The position reached by eurozone countries is set out in the taskforce report. Again, it is worth reminding the House that the sanctions regime does not apply to the UK by virtue of protocol 15 of the current treaty.

Edward Leigh: rose -

Mark Reckless: rose -

Mark Hoban: I will not give way. I listen carefully to the guidance of Mr Speaker.
	To secure fiscal discipline, strong fiscal frameworks are required, as our experience in recent years demonstrates. The fiscal rules developed by the previous Government failed, because their flawed design and remarkable flexibility meant that, despite the rules being met, this country still ended up with a financial crisis. A strong fiscal framework is necessary if we are to have strong public finances. We have shown leadership on that, for example in creating the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has been welcomed by the IMF and the European Commission. Our reforms meet the highest possible standards, and we support responsible fiscal rules at home and abroad. We have achieved that through the mandate the Chancellor set in his emergency Budget.

Mark Reckless: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: Although strong fiscal frameworks are vital, we also believe that fiscal sovereignty is crucial, and that is why the frameworks-the mandates, mechanisms and institutions-should be decided by national Governments and not by European legislation. That position is reflected in the taskforce report, and it is the position that we will adopt in discussions with the Commission.

David Davis: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Hoban: We have protected the sovereignty of the House on fiscal matters, and our position on EU economic governance is clear. We need better macro-economic surveillance and fiscal frameworks, because stable and sustainable economic growth across Europe is in the long-term interest of this country. However, that should not be at the cost of our fiscal and economic sovereignty. The Van Rompuy taskforce updates and strengthens the existing framework. On surveillance, therefore, the taskforce recognises, with explicit references to protocol 15, that the UK's opt-outs mean that we are not subject to the sanctions regime.
	Fiscal frameworks should be stronger, but should not be dictated by Europe. It is the history of this House to defend fiercely our fiscal sovereignty. Through the agreement reached, the Government have achieved that. No sanctions will be imposed on Britain, and we will be free to set the right fiscal policies for our country's needs.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Members are free to try to intervene whenever they wish, and Ministers can respond accordingly. I simply want it to be understood that the House can do as it wishes, but it should do so with its eyes open.

Mark Reckless: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did not the Minister agree to take an intervention, before the intervention from the Chair?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order at all. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat and not dilate. Mr Christopher Leslie.

Christopher Leslie: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	Lurking on the future business section of the Order Paper for some weeks has been a motion for the House to note the European Union taskforce report on European economic governance. Although that gestation period seems to have been overtaken by the events that have transpired following the European Council, it is a pity that an urgent question from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was required before light began to be shed on any of the details being considered by the real power brokers in Europe. Our Prime Minister was clearly left on the sidelines in many of the discussions. If I were generous, I might say that that was fair enough, given that we are outside the eurozone. However, the European Council meeting at the end of October showed clearly that the Germans and the French are very much in the driving seat, leaving the Prime Minister with a few scraps to hold aloft as pseudo-trophies in the European Union budget discussions while clearly being unsure how to cope with the prospect of a new treaty being dropped in his lap.

Mark Reckless: As the Front Benches appear to be in agreement on this issue, may I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? Surely the point is that, as he said, France and Germany, which are in the eurozone, need something from us. We had a veto, yet we agreed to this notwithstanding the veto. The 2.9% had already been agreed by the Council. We had a veto on the Next Perspective. What do we get in return?

Christopher Leslie: I shall deal with the nature of the changes in a moment-and there are changes. It would be a bit disingenuous to suggest that nothing is changing in this regard.
	From our point of view, eurozone stability and a sensible crisis mechanism are worthwhile, and it is clearly in our national interest to engage strongly in discussions and reforms that promote economic stability across Europe. We will support sensible changes that benefit the United Kingdom. The core idea of improving the rescue mechanisms for eurozone countries facing severe economic difficulties makes logical sense, and it is also wise to find a permanent footing on which to base any new rules rather than relying on temporary arrangements that might either expire or be subject to legal challenge. However, the Prime Minister and the Government are protesting just a little too much that this is entirely a matter for the eurozone, and absolutely nothing to do with us. In fact, there are indirect implications for our economy because of changes that might affect economic growth in the eurozone, as well as direct policy implications that could change the way in which we operate in the United Kingdom.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend will recall that the previous Prime Minister and his Government drew up five economic tests. Had it not been for him, we would not be debating the motion today, because we would be part of the eurozone.

Christopher Leslie: It was certainly worth punctuating the debate with that point, which my hon. Friend made forcefully and well.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman now kindly respond to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless)? Is the Labour party prepared ever to fight for a repatriation of powers, and would it be prepared to use the veto that it has used for the purposes of this measure as a bargaining chip to gain that repatriation of powers?

Christopher Leslie: Our perspective is clearly different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I want to consider what is on the table. There are details still to come when the European Council meets in December, and we shall have to look at those proposals then. It seems to me that there is a case to be made for some sort of objective analysis of just what transfers of policy may or may not be involved in the proposals that are before us today.

Philip Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman think it makes sense for an organisation whose accounts have not been signed off by auditors for 16 consecutive years to be given more powers over economic and financial governance?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own inimitable way, but I do not want to be diverted from the substance of what is before us. There is a substantial proposition on the table, and I think it is important for all Members to understand it. The detail that will eventually emerge from the final taskforce report is important, and it would be useful if the Minister could deal with some of the question marks that hang over some of the detail, to which Members have already alluded.
	For example, a series of new fiscal disciplines-as they are called-will be pursued across the European Union but, of course, largely for eurozone countries; yet the adoption of enforcement measures will apparently be subject to the negative qualified majority voting procedure. That presumably means that the United Kingdom will take part in any of those decisions. If that is so, can the Minister say how we will inform our policy position if we are involved in votes on enforcement measures? While we may not have a vetoing power here, our role could be strategically significant.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is using terms like "largely" and "presumably". These are not definite enough for me. Please will he be firmer and clearer in what he is saying?

Christopher Leslie: I wish I could be firmer and clearer, but we are dealing with a malleable set of proposals. The bundle of directives keeps changing, moving and morphing from phase to phase, and the directives will clearly go into a different phase when the European Council meets in December, but we can discern the rough direction of travel, and many Members will take a firm view on that.
	The Minister talked about the sanctions. Yes, it is the case that they may not apply to the UK because of our opt-out from the euro, but the range of non-binding standards and early warning requirements in the event of significant deviation from the adjustment path apparently would apply to the UK; I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case. Even if the UK is to be subject only to such commentaries, public observations or other non-binding standards, the Minister should tell the House how they would work and what the implications for us would be. Clearly, what the taskforce report calls the new reputational and political measures will be phased in progressively, but is it correct to read the proposals as also applying to the UK? In other words, is it not true that we will be subject to reporting requirements, potential formal reporting to the European Council in certain circumstances and enhanced surveillance-whatever "enhanced" may mean-if the situation dictates? Is it not also true that we will be subject to onsite monitoring from a mission of the EC-which I thought was curious, and which certainly might be of interest to some Conservative Members-and possible publication in the public domain of these reports and surveillance? Will the proposed regulations to strengthen the audit powers of Eurostat also apply to the UK, and what are the anticipated compliance costs of those changes for the UK and the Treasury? If we fail to comply with the proposed requirements, is it not the case that sanctions could be applied to the UK?

John Redwood: If this House and a properly elected British Government have chosen a certain course of action on the deficit or the balance of payments-or on whatever-how does it help to have the EU marking the homework, condemning it and using moral suasion to say that this House is wrong?

Christopher Leslie: Well, my point is that it may or may not be a sensible move-and as a pro-European I think benefit could come from it-but what is important is that we get clarity from the Government about what exactly is on the table. If there are to be treaty changes and other new regulations, the Minister has to be straight about that with the country and the House. The latest sanctions in the framework-in terms of interest bearing deposits, non-interest bearing deposits and eventual fines-may not apply to the UK, but there is a first phase to that process which is the application of standards and assessments of our economic and fiscal position, and that will apply to the UK. The motion seeks approval for the Government's position that any sanctions should not apply to the UK because of our euro opt-out, but there are developments here that strengthen the role of the EU in respect of our economic policy, and while that may be a good thing, some Members of this House would be wary of it.
	There are also wider implications for our economy and our growth trajectory. For example, I am particularly intrigued by the German argument that bondholders should have greater liability-such as in the form of interest payment holidays, or bond value haircuts, as they are known-for potential future eurozone bail-outs. The implications for UK banks and bondholders could be significant if they are embroiled to a larger extent in the crisis management mechanism. UK banks hold particularly high proportions of Irish and Spanish liabilities. A recent Bank for International Settlements report found that 22% of Irish bonds and 11% of Spanish bonds are in UK hands. There has been much discussion of whether City investors are therefore subject to higher risk, or whether the markets have already priced that in. Either way, there are indirect implications for British investors. Moreover, the new suite of policy changes affecting eurozone economic governance will not just be on paper; the changes will bite in the real economies in each of the eurozone countries and could have a bearing on their own internal growth and investment plans.

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. While the UK may not be signed up to the stability and growth pact and we may not be subject to EU deficit procedures, stability and growth in the eurozone are very important to the British economy. Moreover, the way in which the Government are dealing with our deficit will put British growth at risk, and that is part and parcel of how we interact with the other economies in Europe.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. If fiscal policies across the eurozone are simultaneously shifted towards a marginally more deflationary stance as a result of the new policy framework that we are debating tonight, the resulting contraction in economic activity and consumer spending could impact on the sale of British goods and services in those countries. In other words, the eurozone-which, as we know, is by far the UK's largest trading partner, accounting for more than 50% of our exports-could face economic challenges and, in turn, it is likely that UK companies will face problems exporting to those markets. Add to that the G20 discussions on international currency issues and an influx of capital to the eurozone following worries over the dollar and the Chinese renminbi and we can imagine a relative appreciation of the euro afflicting our exporters still further. We will have to see how that latter issue pans out in particular, but this is of significance to the UK.

Bernard Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that somehow these arrangements will give us more influence and more control over the economies of other member states? On that basis, should we therefore not be seeking to enter into arrangements of the same sort with, say, the United States, so that we can control its deficit? The US deficit will have far more effect on our economy than any individual deficit in any individual member state of the EU.

Christopher Leslie: Those of us in opposition are merely asking questions and scrutinising what is on the table, but we are trying to find out what will be the impact on the UK. Ministers are arguing, "Don't worry, absolutely nothing changes and there is no impact whatever." As far as I can see, there are strands and suggestions that there will be an impact, both direct and indirect. In that respect, although we might have different views, there might be a point on which we can agree.
	If the eurozone deflation and the shrinkage of European economic markets affect our exports, that matters, because the Treasury has depended on them so greatly. The June Budget and the spending review were predicated on a return to strong economic growth here in the UK, based principally on higher business investment and strong export growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility analysis shows that the cuts imposed because of the Chancellor's austerity programme and his overly speedy deficit reduction strategy will see private consumption shrink rapidly and Government consumption doing the same.
	Cuts in domestic expenditure will hit growth-that much is clear-but the Chancellor has bet the shop on the countervailing growth in trade and business investment. The Treasury states clearly that it needs £100 billion of growth in exports and business investment, yet the last time we saw such a massive rate of growth for exports was in 1974 and we achieved that rate of improvement in business investment only in 2005, but the Chancellor's sums depend on the UK achieving both those record levels in each of the next three years-a very tall order indeed, equivalent to tripling our exports to the US and seeing our exports to China grow 20 times or to India 40 times.
	Clearly, our reliance on the eurozone's appetite for our exports is central to the Chancellor's strategy, so there are implications for British fiscal policy here.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He focuses on trade, but it is in trade that we have our worst possible relationship with the rest of the EU. We have a gigantic trade deficit. We buy billions more from them every month than they do from us. The only advantage we have had in the last year or two is that we have depreciated the pound relative to the euro and we have started to see a slight improvement in our trade balance with the EU.

Christopher Leslie: If we see growth dented here in the UK because those ripples flow from the eurozone-changes as a result, perhaps, of the measures we are debating-we could see further implications for spending cuts here in the UK in respect of vital public services and more austerity when perhaps stimulus would be the order of the day. However, there is a balance of risks here and it is clearly important for fiscal discipline to be exercised, but responsibly so. We have argued for a sensitive and measured approach to deficit reduction in this country, rather than the doctrinaire approach of steep and swift cuts favoured by the parties whose Members sit on the Government Benches.
	I am glad to note the ironic analysis of the Minister in the explanatory memorandum that was referred to, which he signed last week. He said that he believed
	"that the main consideration should be whether a Member State's debt is on a downward trajectory, rather than the specific pace of annual debt reduction".
	He also said that the numerical pace should remain
	"only as an indicative benchmark...that...is not used as a concrete rule by which Member States' debt reduction plans are judged."
	How right he is-if only he applied such pragmatic sense to our economy and public services in the UK, too.

Claire Perry: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's measured canter around the potential risks associated with this legislation and I am also entertained to hear the words "stability and growth" coming from the Opposition Benches-something that perhaps they did not achieve towards the end of their time in office. However-perhaps I am front-running his conclusion-is he going to vote for or against the legislation tonight?

Christopher Leslie: As I see it, it is difficult to know yet what propositions are before us. I want to hear the Minister's answers to our questions and we will make up our minds then. The substance of the regulations and the eventual treaty changes might be beneficial, but we also have to wait and see what President Van Rompuy proposes in his eventual treaty amendment and what emerges from the December Council meeting. We are not at the end of a process; we are in it. There are further propositions to be put on the table.

Mark Hendrick: One regulation that might well be on the table is for any member state of the European Union, within or outside the eurozone, that has a debt level of greater than 60% of GDP to reduce that debt at a rate of at least 5% per annum. That could well be a regulation that the Government sign up to, even though they might not be subject to penalties if they do not keep to it.

Christopher Leslie: Indeed. There could be significant direct policy changes as regards transfers of policy and also indirect economic impacts on the UK. We have to see more detail about what will emerge from those who are in the driving seat-unfortunately, that does not seem to be either our Chancellor or our Prime Minister.

Matthew Hancock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I want to make a bit of progress-but it is too tempting.

Matthew Hancock: I am extremely grateful. The Minister made a clear statement that this House, under this Government, will retain fiscal sovereignty. Would the hon. Gentleman?

Christopher Leslie: We take the view, as we always have, that where it was in the British interest to co-operate with our European colleagues, we would do so. The hon. Gentleman's continuing loyalty to the Chancellor is laudable-he has a record of that-but I am not sure that he has convinced the colleagues on his own side. The coalition remains precarious on Europe, straddling so many major divisions on how to proceed. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister is on the margins of these discussions in Europe when he is buffeted between the margins of his own Government. He is caught somewhere between the pro-European enthusiasms of the Deputy Prime Minister-at least, that used to be his position before the general election, and I am not quite sure what his position is now-and the anti-European Union noises from a sizeable chunk of his party. Will the Prime Minister persuade his colleagues that any treaty should not require a referendum? We shall have to wait and see. Although the Government might be concentrating on papering over the cracks in the coalition, the Opposition will monitor closely the impact of these changes on exports, growth, jobs and the prosperity of this country. Those are the issues that matter to our constituents and they are our priorities.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. We have fewer than 45 minutes and approximately 15 Members are seeking to catch my eye. Right hon. and hon. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves, but a certain economy will be required if many are to be satisfied.

William Cash: This debate and the Minister's remarks remind me of what Alice said in "Through the Looking-Glass", when she referred to Humpty Dumpty and his rather scornful tone:
	"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said...'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.'
	'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
	'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-that's all.'"
	That is the essence of the question of European economic governance. We have been told that it is good for us, that it does not affect us and that it does not make a difference. However much one gets into the interpretation of those words, the European Scrutiny Committee's report makes it clear that there are significant differences, in aggregate, between different parts of the regulations and directives. If the proposal is accepted by the Government, they will effectively cross the Rubicon and similarly, by acquiescing in ever-greater European governance over our economy, they will significantly undermine our ability to govern ourselves. We need less Europe, not more.
	The proposals extend to the United Kingdom, as a member of the European Union, thereby raising questions of sovereignty. Under the aegis of the forthcoming Bill on the European Union, my Committee will hold an inquiry so that we can sort out once and for all whether it is the House of Commons, Parliament and that sovereignty which governs the country, or whether it is the European Union. Under Standing Orders, the Committee's duty is to report to the House, not to the Government, on matters that we regard as requiring debate by reason of their legal or political importance. The scrutiny reserve remains in place until the debate has taken place, and thereafter Ministers can, and no doubt will, vote and/or agree the proposals, but may continue negotiations.
	I was glad that the Minister's explanatory memorandum stated specifically, on several vital matters, that the Government would
	"seek to ensure in negotiations"
	that matters of concern would be improved. In doing so, the memorandum by definition conceded that these issues have not been resolved entirely, that negotiations could improve them, that they do make a difference to the United Kingdom, its Government and its Parliament and that they have to be remedied. As Chairman of the Committee, I have placed in the Library a note in my name on all these matters, so anyone who wishes to look at them may do so.
	I was puzzled by the Prime Minister's response to a question that I asked during his statement to the House on the outcome of the European Council meeting. He accepted that the matter was complex and required a greater opportunity for exchange of opinions and explanation, but he also said:
	"This is not a new framework."-[ Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 614.]
	I find that extremely puzzling, however one construes it, given the evidence before us and the specific reference to a new surveillance framework in the taskforce report and in the presidency conclusions that he signed off. The truth is that the Commission intends to exert peer pressure on all member states of the European Union. The taskforce report of 21 October preceded documents being placed in the Library, following an urgent question I asked, emblazoned with the word "limité", which means very restricted circulation. They included a letter of 9 July from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other member states. It might be thought that there was every reason to present those documents to the European Scrutiny Committee, even if they were not specifically depositable. The Committee does not operate by website.
	A substantial question on whether the UK is affected has been dealt with in a note that I received from the Library, from which I shall quote, on increased macroeconomic surveillance. It says:
	"It is proposed that a greater role is played by the Commission in macroeconomic surveillance. This surveillance mechanism would be distinct from that currently taking place under the SGP"-
	the stability and growth pact-
	"because it is non-fiscal in nature; it will focus on countries' broader macroeconomic positions in relation to the rest of the EU."
	The note goes on:
	"The idea of deeper macroeconomic surveillance was put forward in March this year as part of the...Europe 2020 proposals",
	which were, of course, under the previous Government. The note continues:
	"As originally envisaged, the deeper surveillance framework would apply only to the euro area countries; however, the Commission proposals of 30(th) June"-
	after the general election-
	"and the Task Force Report of 21(st) October"
	both apply to "all Member States". That is a matter of considerable concern. Why have the coalition Government agreed to extend the framework to all the member states, whereas the previous Government appear to have confined it exclusively to the euro area? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, the taskforce recommends deeper macroeconomic surveillance, with the introduction of a new mechanism underpinned by a new legal framework based on article 121. The Minister's explanatory memorandum specifically refers to the legal impact and therefore the jurisdiction of these matters, as I have already mentioned, which clearly shows that there is a legal impact on the UK. Therefore, by definition, the proposed mechanism affects the UK and hands over jurisdiction in these matters to the European Court of Justice for interpretation and construction.
	Furthermore, it is possible, and even likely, that the stricter reporting requirements will apply to the United Kingdom under the macroeconomic surveillance proposals, particularly if the UK were placed in an excessive imbalance position. We have always conceded, right from the beginning, way back to the time of the Maastricht rebellion, that there would be no sanctions because of the opt-out that we achieved. The fact that the Government continuously state that it is a victory not to have had sanctions imposed is merely a statement of the obvious. I go further. I would be grateful if someone could tell me which member states have ever paid any fines or had any sanctions imposed upon them under any of these arrangements. The answer is none, and there are those who argue that there never will be.
	We are in a difficult situation with regard to how we will vote on the motion. Serious questions arise, and I was concerned when I read the letter and the appended document from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I had to extract by way of an urgent question, for which I was most grateful, Mr Speaker. In that, there is a description of economic governance, the words of which would not be easily understood. It states:
	"Democratic legitimacy is vital to everything that the EU does, and Ministers need to be accountable both to other Member States and to their electorate."
	I find that a new and strange doctrine, and a rather dangerous one. I had no idea that Ministers were accountable to other EU member states. It is conceded, and I agree, that the United Kingdom Budget will be presented first to the UK Parliament, but the essence of the problem is that in the compilation and the construction of the Budget, a series of data and statistical information would have to be provided. That in itself creates the framework that constricts our ability within our parliamentary process to act on our own terms and in line with the principles that underpin our parliamentary Government-that matters of taxation and spending and the formulation of them depend upon the House of Commons, not upon the European Union.
	Given the significance that has been attached to these ideas, they represent a drift and an acceptance of European economic government through the surveillance framework by increasing the powers available to the Commission. This does not in any way alter the degree of intrusion into the construction of our Budget before it is presented to Parliament. One of the most difficult aspects is that far from our having a need for much less European economic governance, we are having more. As we move further forward and become more absorbed into this arrangement, we have to ask what is actually happening in the EU itself. As one of the other national European scrutiny committee chairmen said to Mr Van Rompuy when I was in Brussels the other day, "Will the European Union go bankrupt if we refuse to obey your rules?" Other member states are beginning to get the message, which is why I think Mr Van Rompuy issued that assault on Euroscepticism throughout Europe. He is getting the message that people in national Parliaments are not prepared to accept, for example, the fact that their economies have failed because of the EU's refusal to deregulate and repatriate. I mention in brief the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks on that subject, because he clearly stated that there would be no repatriation, despite what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asserted in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2005.
	We need to generate enterprise for small and medium-sized businesses. There is the failure of the Lisbon agenda, massive unemployment, of more than 20% in some countries, riots, protests and a sense of failure, despair and democratic hopelessness. This is reflected-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very considerably wide of the matters under discussion. I know that he is a sensitive fellow and will be aware of the significant number of other Members who wish to contribute, so I feel sure that, in bringing his remarks to a fairly early close, he will focus on the matters that are before us, rather than those that are not.

William Cash: I entirely accept that and will bring my remarks immediately to a conclusion.
	Rules and regulations will not turn the European Union into a thriving economy with which we trade. It is said that 50% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the proposals before us are necessary to achieve stability in the European Union. The crucial point is that, underneath all those rules and regulations and the determination to achieve European economic governance, we are going the wrong way, not the right way. The measures do affect us. We need more enterprise, more small businesses, more deregulation and repatriation. I am not surprised, therefore that in a recent opinion poll 80% of people said that they wanted the repatriation of powers from the European Union.
	We are being more and more absorbed by a failed European Union. Under this coalition, roadblocks are being put up to prevent us from sorting that out, and the new surveillance framework is part of the problem, not the solution. I shall vote against the motion.

Austin Mitchell: I shall join the hon. and long-winded Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in the Lobby tonight, because, whatever our Front Benchers say, there is enough lead in my pencil to realise that the proposals should be opposed, and that the Government's long-winded motion is unacceptable. The measures will impose additional obligations on the United Kingdom, but I shall not go into them, because my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) made the main point. It is a question not so much of the obligations, but of the economic effects of the measures on European markets.
	Even if, as the Minister said, the measures are enforced only on eurozone states, they will still have an economic effect on us, because when discipline is tightened in the eurozone, there is eurozone deflation. That is already in progress. It was built into the exchange rate mechanism, and it is now built into the euro, because Germany has abnormally low inflation. Germany has a marvellous co-operative arrangement with the unions and with industry. It has heavy investment, powerful producers and abnormally low inflation, but because all the other eurozone states, which have customarily had higher inflation, wage inflation and costs, are involved in the same currency, they are forced to deflate to German levels. In other words, the euro is a deflationary mechanism that forces other nations down to the abnormally low rate of inflation in Germany, and that has consequences. They are all increasing unemployment, cutting public spending and deflating their economies, and therefore the demand for Germany's powerful exports falls.
	Our exports are also affected. We now need a period of export-led growth, having not had that and having built up an enormous deficit in the European Economic Community. The 25% devaluation that we have experienced because of the previous Prime Minister's wisdom in keeping us out of the euro allows us to take the adjustments on the exchanges, which Greece and the other countries cannot do, but we are not getting the benefit of that because of the deflation in European markets. Deflation has been forced on Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland, which are all very seriously deflated. Demand in Europe is therefore cut, and it will be cut further if these measures are introduced. We need export-led growth and we are not getting it. That is my main argument; I will be very brief.
	I am frightened that the Minister's approach, and the approach involved in the motion, means that on another issue we will fudge, not fight. Fudge is built into this Government because it is a coalition between the Liberal Democrats, who are Euro-daft, and my friends and allies the serried ranks on the Conservative Benches, whom I hope to join in the Lobby. There is a built-in tendency to fudge that we have already seen in the approach to the European budget, where without opposing, fighting or contesting it, we have agreed a 2.9% increase which will mean an increase of £440 million in our contribution to £7 billion next year. This country can ill afford that when we are cutting public services. I want to avoid the tendency to fudge that is built into this Government and to encourage them, by our votes tonight, instead to fight on these issues.

James Clappison: Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on his very full opening speech. I want to say a few words about one or two things that perhaps did not creep into his remarks.
	I should like to pay a compliment to the President of the European Union; I suppose that he does not often get that in this place. The words in his report are very clear about what he was trying to do-to put in place a new mechanism. That is what he was charged with doing by the European Council, and that is indeed what he did. It will be no surprise that the President of the European Union should seek to discharge that duty by putting in place a whole raft of new measures giving new powers and responsibilities to the European Commission.
	The Minister helpfully set out those new powers in the Government's explanatory memorandum. That makes it clear that the European Commission, whether we say that it has new responsibilities, new roles or new powers, is going to be very busy giving a good going over to this country's economic performance, reaching public judgments that could well have an effect on our economic reputation. It sets a scoreboard for how well the country is doing, and judges the country by that scoreboard. It carries out reviews and investigations and sends delegations, and if the country in question is not responding appropriately, the Commission has the power to recommend to the Council that that country be placed in the excessive imbalances procedure-something that I think the Minister did not have quite enough time to mention.
	Whether one regards that as a sanction depends on an interesting choice of language. In my previous career as a member of the Bar, I never thought to console a prisoner who had just been sentenced to immediate custody by saying to him, "Well, at least you didn't get a fine." The excessive imbalances procedure could well be borne in mind by those who frame economic policy and wish to avoid such a consequence. Other Members will have far more experience of financial services and the markets than me, but I do not think that anybody in the markets would be dancing with glee at the news that the country was just about to be placed under such a procedure. This is all down to the very wide range of new responsibilities of the European Commission, which is being allocated a much more intrusive role by this document.
	The alternative argument is that it is a good thing that this is happening; we heard shades of that from the Labour Front Bench. However, how much confidence can we place in the economic management and judgment of the European Commission, considering matters starting with its rather cavalier treatment of recommendations for the European budget in the current economic circumstances, and going all the way back to the fudged criteria for European economic and monetary union?
	Even if one does have great confidence in the European Commission, there are bigger questions that should loom in all our minds. To whom is it accountable? Can we ask it questions? Can we hold it to account in this House, and who does hold it to account? What can the man in the street, the voter, do if he is not happy with the economic criteria that it has fashioned for this country?
	Ministers should be very careful indeed about the responsibilities that are allocated to the European Commission. I know that there is a choice of language and a judgment to be made, but after looking through the long list of new responsibilities that have been given to the Commission, I think we should be very careful. We have heard talk of surveillance and informal discussions, but Ministers should remember that not all that long ago, justice and home affairs, and the common foreign and security policy, were said to be matters on which Ministers would simply carry out informal discussions between themselves. It was said that they would never come within the purview of European institutions. Today, of course, justice and home affairs are very much within the grasp of European law makers and the European Union, and we now have a European Foreign Minister and a European diplomatic service. Not that long ago, those things were the subject of informal discussions.
	We should be very careful indeed before setting foot down this path. We should consider the matter carefully this evening and face up to the enormity of the responsibilities that we are placing upon the European Commission.

Michael Connarty: First, I wish to put on record what we are supposed to be debating, because Members have wandered all over the place. We are debating a series of six documents sent to the Government by the European Scrutiny Committee, on which the Government have now taken a position. Four are about the stability and growth pact-our Committee reference numbers for them are 32036, 32043, 32044 and 32047. The other two relate to the excessive imbalances procedure-documents 32045 and 32046.
	In the main, those documents make no difference whatever to procedures that the UK has to carry out. However, a lot of heat has been made about the fact that they affect other countries, and that if the conspiracy theory of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) is borne out, they may affect our Government, who will have to give up their fiscal veto. The same was said in the exchanges on the recent urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). However, we are quite clearly protected in the Lisbon treaty and do not have to go down that road.
	The documents will not have any effect on us, because we are not a member of the eurozone. They can be read in detail, and Members will find that the coercive measures set out in them do not relate to anyone outside the eurozone. The Government's position is therefore to note the documents.
	On 27 October, the Government made their position clear in response to the hon. Gentleman's urgent question. The Financial Secretary quoted the report of the taskforce on strengthening economic governance in the EU, which has been referred to today as though it were a conspiracy document. It states that
	"strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of protocol 15 of the Treaty".
	That is quite clear. The hon. Gentleman reiterated that
	"we will not agree to any changes to EU treaties that move more powers from this country to the EU. The UK's exemption from the sanctions proposal will be explicit, and there will be no shift of sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels."-[ Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 319.]
	It is important that we are clear about what we are trying to do.
	We should be sensible in our debates, and I say to Members to whom the EU is anathema, or who are Eurosceptic to a great degree, that they should not diminish what they have to say about important matters relating to the Government's position on the EU by arguing that somehow we are selling out if we do what is asked in document 32047, which is about the surveillance mechanism in the reporting regime. If we do not know what 26 of the 27 countries are doing in their budgets, we must agree on a proposal for everyone to put in information, so that both we and the Commission know what other Governments are doing. If we had done that we would have known how badly Greece's economy was faring when it was suddenly found not to be putting accurate figures in to the European Commission.

Bernard Jenkin: Just for the convenience of the House, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the numbers of the documents that he has read out do not correspond with the numbers in the Government's motion, because those are the documents that we are scrutinising?

Michael Connarty: The Government use the nomenclature of the EC reference and I am giving the Committee reference. When people want to find things, it is much easier to look at what the European Scrutiny Committee does under its numbers than to try to find it in EU documentation. They are, in fact, the same documents.
	There is a very good advert on television-"Calm down, dear, it's only an advert." To people who try to say that this motion is a major sell-out by the Government, I say, "Calm down, dear, it's only an information exchange." Frankly, if there is a vote tonight, I will be voting with the Government. I will not be voting for any of the absurd amendments that have been tabled. The Government are doing the right thing. I am not out to score points on behalf of my party against another party. Our relationship with the other 27 countries with which we do most of our trade is far too serious for that. We must not kid people. The hon. Member for Hertsmere, with whom I sit in the European Scrutiny Committee, did not complete his quote from paragraph 34, page 8 of the taskforce report, which said:
	"taking into account the specificity of the euro area."
	Paragraph 35 talks about the Commission conducting in-depth analysis and surveillance missions
	"in liaison with the ECB for euro area...states."
	It is quite clear that these documents are about the eurozone. I know that there are problems in the eurozone, but when signing up to the euro one takes on such responsibilities.

James Clappison: rose -

Michael Connarty: Given that we are trying to let people speak, I will not give way.
	Let us be sensible. To give and exchange information is sensible, as is surveillance. Without any wish to criticise anyone in this or the previous Government, I say that when comments were being made about our imbalances, perhaps our Government should have listened, and then we would not be living in such straitened times.

Peter Lilley: The question that this House must face is this: do these measures and the possible treaty change that they presage constitute a threat to the sovereignty of this country or an opportunity for us to regain a little sovereignty? If the measures envisage a substantive transfer of sovereignty, restricting our fiscal and economic freedom, then the issue is clear: we should veto them or seek a full exemption from them. If the Government were to contemplate accepting them without a full exemption, there would have to be a referendum. Indeed, the very prospect of a referendum would be enough to gain us full exemption. My hon. Friends have concerns, which I fully understand and respect, that although limited to giving information and possibly signing up to targets that we could not be compelled to meet, these measures may be the thin end of a Trojan horse-if I may mix my metaphors.
	We have seen in the past how wording that has been glossed over has led to the transfer of powers. So far, I am not persuaded that the measures and what is envisaged in the treaty changes would result in a substantial transfer of sovereignty. However, I shall listen closely, and advise others to inspect thoroughly and scrutinise deeply. If at the end of the day we are signing up just to the sort of surveillance that we already receive from the IMF, that would not worry me too much. Indeed, then I would say to myself, "This is an opportunity." If the measures solely concern the members of the eurozone, but none the less require our assent before they can go ahead, we should say to them, "We will let you do to yourselves what you want. We will give you the necessary approval, if in return you let us do some things that we want to do, which won't concern you, by repatriating some powers."
	We on the Conservative Benches were elected on a manifesto that said:
	"We will work to bring back key powers over legal rights, criminal justice and social and employment legislation to the UK."
	We have a target, and this is an opportunity, so we should seize it. However, we are, of course, a coalition Government, so we should seek modest returns of powers that are compatible with the objectives of the whole coalition. Liberal Members in the west country expressed their hope for a return of powers over fisheries; indeed, they stood at the election on it. Fisheries are not a big issue in my inland constituency, but I would be prepared to work with those Members for a return of powers.
	However, the coalition agreement is quite specific. It says not only that we will
	"ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament,"
	but that we will
	"examine the balance of the EU's existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom."
	I therefore have a simple question for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in the affirmative in his winding-up speech. Will we be using this opportunity both to meet the objectives laid out clearly in the coalition agreement and, in return for our consent to such measures, to seek to limit the application of the working time directive to the United Kingdom?

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly, but it is important for the House to know that there are also Members on the Opposition Benches who will be voting against the Government motion, and on similar grounds to do with the implicit transfer of sovereignty in the Commission's initiative. I congratulate the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), on ensuring that the House is fully aware of the concern about such matters and on the fact that we are having this debate, as it is largely down to him.
	There is serious confusion about the wording of the documents. The terms "all member states", "eurozone states" and "non-eurozone states except the UK" are used at different points throughout. It would be simpler if only the term "eurozone states" was used throughout, so that we could be absolutely clear that the provisions apply only to the eurozone states. In the first draft regulation-on the preventive arm of the stability and growth pact, as it is called-reference is made to all member states. In the second draft regulation-on what is known as the excessive deficit procedure-reference is made to all member states, but a little later it refers in two places to the eurozone. The third draft regulation talks about eurozone states. The two further regulations, on macro-economic imbalances, refer to member states-not "all member states"-or, alternatively, to eurozone member states, but right at the end there is a reference to non-eurozone member states except the UK. I want to be clear that the provisions apply to the eurozone, not to the United Kingdom, so that we can know precisely where we stand on sovereignty over our own economy.

Stephen Williams: I, too, had to read the documents several times before I began to understand what was being proposed, but is not the simple distinction that the information-sharing provisions apply to all EU member states, whereas the sanctions under the stability and growth pact apply only to eurozone members?

Kelvin Hopkins: The Minister himself said that any information about the economy that was needed could be found by googling it, and there is also the Library note on economic indicators, which I use regularly. All the information is there-for example, in the Budget statements and so on-and we do not need to provide much more than that. There is masses of public information. We do not need to have it in regulations. It can be provided as a matter of course. We must put down a marker for the European Union saying that we will not go this far, and that we do not want changes that show political creep or gradual encroachment of the European Union into British sovereignty over our own economy, going beyond the treaties.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) about the nonsense of the eurozone and the economic arrangements that it entails. There is a reference to "surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances", but the trade imbalance that I focused on earlier in the debate is serious. We have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the European Union, particularly Germany, which sustains a massive trade surplus. Will the European Union focus on that imbalance?
	In 1944, Keynes said that countries running massive trade surpluses should be required to appreciate their currencies to bring them into line. Will that be suggested to Germany? That cannot happen because Germany is in the eurozone, and all those other countries that cannot compete and cannot inflate at a greater rate are having severe difficulties, which are becoming worse year by year. Will that imbalance be addressed? When it is, I will start to take the European Union a little more seriously on economic matters.
	I have probably said enough. I intend to vote against the motion, and I hope that the Government will challenge the European Union to make the wording of its documentation right and acceptable to the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I intend to call the Minister to wind up the debate no later than 6.31 pm, and I am sure that that will be borne in mind.

Douglas Carswell: I shall be brief, and I shall vote against the motion. The House is being asked to endorse an agreement that would strengthen European Union economic governance. It is not in dispute that the new measures would give EU institutions, the Commission and the Council greater powers. What is in dispute is, first, the extent to which such changes would involve the United Kingdom, and whether the new arrangements would apply only to the 16 members of the eurozone, or to all 27 member states, including Britain.
	The second point of contention is the extent to which Britain is now subject to EU oversight when we set our own Budget. Having gone to Brussels promising not to give away so much of our money, Ministers seem to have returned having given Brussels the right to have a say in how we spend the rest of our Budget.
	No one was more heartened than I to hear the Prime Minister tell the House back in June that any new deal with the EU
	"should not interfere with national competencies".
	He also said:
	"On budget surveillance, let me be clear: the UK Budget will be shown to this House first and not to the Commission...co-ordination and consultation, yes; clearance, no, never."-[ Official Report, 21 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 35.]
	Such assurances were welcome, yet within a couple of weeks we heard Olli Rehn, the Economic and Monetary Policy Commissioner, spell out the details. He said:
	"All member states would submit their fiscal programmes at the same time in April to allow the Council to issue country specific policy guidelines".
	Is it any wonder that when the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Select Committee he was able to reveal the date of the next Budget? It is now part of a timetable set in Brussels.
	Ministers have claimed that the level of disclosure is nothing new, and that it is no more than what a think-tank might find out about UK fiscal policy via Google. Indeed, but think-tanks do not have the power to issue guidelines, and they cannot pass legislation on the basis of the analysis that they then make.
	Ministers are keen to tell us that as a result of the new arrangements Britain would not at this time be subject to sanctions. To the best of my knowledge, no one is suggesting otherwise. The issue at stake is not whether the new EU regulations apply sanctions to the UK, but whether, from now on, the EU has the right to make laws on UK fiscal policy in the first place.
	At his press conference on 17 June, the Prime Minister assured us that because we are outside the eurozone our opt-outs would be safeguarded. He talked of Van Rompuy's efforts to "strengthen Eurozone governance arrangements". He referred to the eurozone, not the EU. Since then, the talk has been not of eurozone economic governance arrangements, but of EU governance arrangements. Within a couple of weeks of the Prime Minister's assurances, talk shifted from measures that would affect just the 16 eurozone members to measures that would apply to all 27 member states, including Britain.
	Angela Merkel made it clear that economic governance should apply to all EU states, not just the eurozone. Barroso declared with reference to economic governance:
	"Europe must show it is more than 27 different national solutions".
	He said 27, not 16. It is clear that his intention is that the new arrangements apply to the UK. Van Rompuy went out of his way to warn against creating what he called "dividing lines" between 27 member states and 16 eurozone countries. What were clear assurances to be welcomed and embraced in early summer had, by the onset of autumn, become dividing lines to be done away with.
	Paragraph 34 of the Van Rompuy report states that there will be a new legal framework
	"applying to all EU Member States".
	Can the Minister explain what part of "all" excludes Britain? Regardless of paragraphs 35 and 39, or reference to protocol 15 of any treaty, such wording creates ambivalence at the very least. It suggests that EU institutions will now be able to legislate in areas of UK national competence in which they could not previously legislate. Has the precedent now been set? Is the field occupied? Is not the stage set for the day when some other Minister returns from Brussels to explain to the House how we have been sadly outvoted?
	So who is right? Ministers who assure us, or Eurocrats who do not? How can we explain the differences between Ministers' assurances and what lies in the small print of what is before the House today? At best, this can be explained by sloppy drafting by officials, but if that is the case, why are we employing sloppy drafters to negotiate matters of such fundamental importance? Are those officials the ones on whom we will depend to turn the contents of the Van Rompuy report into the treaty changes? I cannot support the motion, as it will mean a further transfer of powers from this country to Brussels. I urge colleagues to oppose it.

Mark Hoban: I have listened carefully to hon. Members' concerns tonight, and I want to state yet again that the proposals from the Van Rompuy taskforce strengthen an existing framework, crucially without encroaching on fiscal and economic sovereignty. There is much more work to be done on this, but let me assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government are committed to securing the best outcome from the proposals, to defending Britain's interests and to protecting this Parliament's right to set and scrutinise our fiscal policy. Anything less would not be acceptable.
	I shall deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. Does the fact that the EU, along with other organisations, undertakes surveillance mean that we will be subject to sanctions? No, it does not. Does the measure mean that we will need to follow any of the recommendations made? No. Will we have to present our Budget to Europe before we present it to this House? No. Will we have to give the EU information that has not been presented to this House first? No. Will the provision of information erode our sovereignty? No. Perhaps more importantly, will any powers over our Budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? Again, no. I hope that I have been clear and explicit on those points, and it is for those reasons that I ask Members to support the motion tonight.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 40.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents (a) 9433/10, Commission Communication on reinforcing economic policy co-ordination, (b) 11807/10, Commission Communication on enhancing economic policy co-ordination for stability, growth and jobs - tools for stronger EU economic governance, (c) 14496/10, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) amending Regulation (EC) No. 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, (d) 14497/10, Proposal for a Council Directive on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States, (e) 14498/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, (f) 14512/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, (g) 14515/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and (h) 14520/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies; notes the Report from the Task Force on Economic Governance in the European Union; notes with approval that budgetary and fiscal information will continue to be presented to Parliament before being given to EU institutions; and approves the Government's position, as endorsed by the Task Force that any sanctions proposed should not apply to the United Kingdom in consideration of Protocol 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Freedom of Information

That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mark Hoban relating to European Union Economic Governance. -( Mr Dunne.)
	 Question agreed to.

House of Commons Members' Fund (Discretionary Payments)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 2 November, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1 October 2010 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund in that year. -( Mr Dunne.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Factory Farming

Jim Cunningham: The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Coventry South constituency,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that animals in British factory farms are pumped full of protein to speed up their growth; notes that soy is a major source of protein; further notes that, in order to produce enough protein, precious habitats like rainforests are cleared in South America to make way for vast soy plantations; and further declares that this increases climate changing gases in the atmosphere, damages the Earth's free life-support systems, which provide us with clean water, healthy soil and air to breathe, forces small farmers off their land, making them unable to grow food for their families, and fails UK farmers, leaving them vulnerable to fluctuating commodity prices.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to shift subsidies away from factory farming, to support farmers to grow their own animal feed and to ensure supermarkets offer fair deals to everyone.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000866]

BBC FUNDING (CSR)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-(Mr Dunne.)

Ian Murray: Mr Deputy Speaker, all day long colleagues have been tempting me to say, "Nice to see you, to see you-"

Therese Coffey: Nice!

Ian Murray: I thank the hon. Lady for that sedentary intervention.
	Ever since the BBC's inception in 1922, it has played a major role in this country. The public not only admire the BBC; they trust the corporation to deliver real value and quality while they watch and listen to its channels or, more recently, surf its online content. Indeed, the quality of the BBC output could only be improved by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, appearing as the guest presenter on "Have I Got News For You" or by light-footed former Conservative Members appearing on "Strictly Come Dancing."
	We must, however, protect what the BBC provides and how it is paid for. The licence fee enables our national public-sector broadcaster to provide 10 TV channels, 10 UK-wide network radio stations, 46 nations' and local radio services, regional options, interactive services on BBC iPlayer, and high definition television, as well as the ever-popular BBC websites which attract 22 million unique users in the UK every week. On top of all that output, the BBC is the engine room of the country's hugely important creative industries.
	Let us consider the value of the licence fee. It costs about 40p per day, which is less than half the cost of many daily newspapers and about the same as the price of a pint of milk or a first-class stamp. It costs less than the price of half a loaf of bread, 20 times less than the average cinema ticket, and a 25th of the cost of joining the Liberal Democrats. The licence fee also enables the BBC to invest in the UK as a whole, with a commitment to 50% of network production coming from outside London by 2016 as well as a commitment to the BBC regions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Most importantly, the BBC delivers a significant contribution to the creative industries and the UK economy. Britain's creative sector, which accounts for about 6% of the UK's GDP, can make a significant contribution to economic growth and employment. Having grown at a faster rate than the general economy in recent years, the creative industries are now expected to grow by 4% on average in the next five years. The beneficial impact of the BBC to that is some £7.6 billion a year, including more than £150 million through BBC Worldwide.

Robert Halfon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has made the case for the licence fee, and there is obviously a case for it, but does he not agree that the big problem with it is that no licence fee payer has a say in how the BBC is run? We need to democratise the licence fee and give licence fee payers the vote, at least in respect of the board and trust and the BBC's direction.

Ian Murray: I think the BBC has a lot to learn on those principles. However, I will talk shortly about what the Government have done by not including licence fee payers in the comprehensive spending review and the future of the BBC.
	The BBC is a globally respected brand, which is why the House should be concerned for its future, and it has been described as a national treasure, which is why Labour Members will always stand up for it as a friend, although a critical friend. I must state clearly at the outset that the BBC should not be immune from reform or cuts at a time when we are all supposed to be in this together, but that reform process has to be done through negotiation and with respect for what the BBC delivers and the people-its staff-who deliver the service on behalf of us all.
	The outcome for the BBC from the CSR has shown contempt for the corporation, and the opportunity has been lost truly to change the organisation in the context of a new digital age, changing and fast-moving markets and, significantly, shrinking budgets across the sector in programme making.
	The BBC also has a responsibility to consolidate its own activities within the continual pursuit of excellence alongside an honest examination of the role of both the BBC and, more importantly, public sector broadcasting. The final settlement for the BBC through the comprehensive spending review is yet another example of the Government's undue haste. We have seen that with the dangerous too-deep, too-soon, too-quick cuts that will harm jobs, harm growth and threaten the already fragile UK economy.
	The CSR deal for the BBC was put together in 72 hours. It was a dubious deal, with Ministers embarking on a strategy to intimidate the BBC into accepting whatever came its way. Why? Because the outrageous proposal that the BBC take responsibility for free TV licences for the over-75s hung over it like a guillotine. What would be next? The licence fee paying for the winter fuel allowance, child benefit or perhaps even the Prime Minister's new personal photographer?
	That threat ensured that the BBC would grab the deal given to it through the CSR quickly and with both hands. Let us look at the settlement it was given. It includes a freeze in the licence fee for the remainder of the charter period and the BBC taking on funding for the BBC World Service, BBC Monitoring and the Welsh language channel S4C. In addition, the BBC will be supporting the Secretary of State's pet project, the new City TV, through a £25 million ring-fenced partnership fund. It will also be given responsibility for delivering broadband services. All in all, there is a £340 million bill alongside a 16% real-terms reduction in licence fee income over the period.
	This "delicious" deal, as the Prime Minister described it, was so hastily contrived that it prevented proper consultation and debate with licence payers, stakeholders and, most importantly, BBC staff themselves to the extent that we are left with no real way of knowing the true impact on the BBC. Will it affect the quality of programming? Will it mean the BBC stopping services? Will it mean significant job cuts? Will it damage the independence of the BBC and the BBC World Service? Will the board of S4C take the Government to court, due to it not being consulted about its funding being transferred to the BBC?
	Conversely, this rushed deal has also restricted the opportunity to keep the pressure on the BBC to continue on its programme of reform in terms of bureaucracy and excessive executive pay.

Graeme Morrice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he, like me, received many representations from constituents arguing against any freezing of, or indeed cuts in, the licence fee and supporting its retention so that a quality service can continue to be provided by the BBC?

Ian Murray: I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. Many Members, I am sure, will have received dozens, if not hundreds, of e-mails, letters and telephone calls from people who are concerned about the BBC, cuts to it and what it delivers. Constituents have raised that point with me on numerous occasions.
	To go back to the missed opportunity, the BBC was entering into a new culture of transparency and accountability-a programme that was, on its own measurement, to save £2 billion by 2014. I want to ask the Minister some questions about the future of the BBC. Is this deal on top of the BBC's current strategy to save £2 billion by 2014? What criteria will be applied to where the cuts will fall? Will there be job losses and a reduction in quality? What impact will the cuts have on the move to the media city in Salford and the programming being transferred to the regions-50% by 2016, I think? Who is now responsible for the roll-out of broadband-the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or indeed the BBC? What will the future hold for the BBC World Service? What budget protection will the World Service have? Will that critical service have to compete with other parts of the BBC budget in due course?

Anna Soubry: Is not the real problem with the BBC the fact that it has expanded into areas that it should not have expanded into, and that it has lost sight of the fact that it is a maker and broadcaster of programmes? In moving into websites, it is taking away from other websites. Most importantly, it is taking away the ability of people to work in print journalism. It is really threatening newspapers and other websites.

Ian Murray: I appreciate that intervention, but the BBC has been involved in a programme of reform of what it supplies on the website. The list of duties that has been placed on the BBC by the comprehensive spending review has given it more responsibility, not less. It is the opposite idea to that which has been given by the-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9( 7 ) ).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr  Dunne .)

Ian Murray: I will get used to the procedures in this Chamber, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	On the World Service, will the BBC have budget protection or will the World Service have to compete with other parts of the BBC budget in due course? What role will the Foreign Secretary have in that process? The Secretary of State mentioned that the BBC would have to seek the Foreign Secretary's approval for World Service closures. The fact that the word "closure" is used must concern staff and lovers of the service. Furthermore, the BBC World Service is well regarded as the best international diplomacy and peacekeeping device that the UK has-more effective, indeed, than the UN or any military might.
	Indeed, if you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, the BBC World Service won several awards just last night, demonstrating the distinctive programming that it can provide. At the Association for International Broadcasting awards, the BBC World Service won the best current affairs documentary on radio award and the best single news event radio award for its "Connexion Haiti" team and a drama award for the best creative feature on radio for "The Day that Lehman Died". That shows that listeners the world over appreciate the role of the World Service.
	Will the Minister tell the House what the future is for S4C, given that the Secretary of State recently wrote to the chair of the BBC Trust stating that
	"if the new partnership model between S4C and the BBC proves unviable...the BBC contribution required for S4C will be taken from the licence fee"?
	I read that to mean that S4C could potentially be closed if it becomes unviable. Crucially, how will licence payers, BBC staff and stakeholders be consulted in that process?
	If the economic situation changes, will the Government assure the House that the Government do not reserve the right to go back to the BBC licence fee issue in the course of this licence charter period? If the Secretary of State cannot answer those questions this evening, will he be willing to provide me with a written answer to those points?
	The comprehensive spending review reduced the BBC to the status of just another arm of government where the veil of deficit was used to disguise rash decisions free of proper scrutiny or credible analysis, leaving the question of where the axe will fall. We have seen the response of the public to decisions on axing BBC services-we need merely look back to earlier this year, with the campaigns to save the Asian Network and 6 Music. Those services were seen by many as benchmarks of diversity, equality and innovation in public sector broadcasting.
	There has been no statement in the House on the issues to do with the comprehensive spending review and the BBC. I respectfully ask the Government to provide space in their time for proper debate on and analysis of the consequences of the CSR, the future of the BBC and the future of public sector broadcasting in the UK. This situation shows the Government's attitude towards the BBC. The "delicious" cuts comment by the Prime Minister was, as he later admitted, "ill conceived" and disrespectful to the BBC and showed a callous disregard for the potential job losses at the corporation akin to the Government's ideologically driven 1 million cuts through the CSR in general.
	The future of the BBC is a matter of significant public interest. Opposition Members will stand up for the BBC, for what it provides for the cultural make-up of this country and for the contribution it makes to the UK economy. It projects the best of the UK abroad and is undoubtedly a national treasure that is well loved, respected and should be protected for the future at all costs.

Graham Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing this vital debate. We all recognise the role of the BBC in the world. The then shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), said that the World service is an independent
	"credible voice in parts of the world where the only other messages blend threats and propaganda".
	That is quite true. I echo those worlds and support the World Service, which is a vital service.
	The changes being made following the comprehensive spending review raise serious concerns about the future of the BBC World Service and about the BBC's ability to continue providing a public broadcast service that is informative and represents value for money. Transferring budgetary responsibility from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Treasury to the BBC opens the door to editorial cuts. There has been concern recently that the BBC World Service could be forced to pull out of certain countries, which would be a tragedy given the turbulence in Burma and Iran. I know that the BBC has reinstated its World Service in those areas, but we do not want future cuts to compromise Britain's interests.
	I recognise that the BBC, as a publicly funded body, is obliged to consider its expenditure and whether savings can be made, but that cannot be at the expense of a public service that is valuable at home and abroad. The BBC World Service is one of Britain's most effective and vital assets and we should protect and promote it. We should not reduce our investment in international broadcasting. The National Union of Journalists has said it will fight any proposed cuts, adding that the BBC World Service is a "clear success story". The cuts represent a threat that we can ill afford to that vital service and to jobs. We have to think of the BBC as a world employer because it does not operate only in the UK.
	I am a passionate defender of the organisation and I believe not only in retaining the licence fee but in extending the BBC as a British institution. I have experienced television in many countries, most notably in the USA where freedom and open markets have resulted in massively dumbed-down television and a race to the bottom, with programmes between adverts. The quality of BBC broadcasting provides a high water mark for others to match and raises the bar of programme quality. The BBC leads the world in quality, innovation and impartiality.

Steve Rotheram: Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC is the envy of broadcasting institutions the world over and that we parliamentarians, who are being broadcast live as we speak, should be very proud of it?

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right: the BBC is the envy of the world and is a good business that we should promote. We should see it in that way rather than as a drain on public resources. It is one of the last great vestiges of British influence abroad. BBC online and BBC news provide the world with a British perspective and a brand that should be protected at all costs. A commercial, or part-commercially dependent, BBC would need to survive from advertising revenue and would have to focus on mass-market universal appeal, but that market is filled by ITV, Sky and Channel Five domestically. That would involve, in short, a dumbed-down, broadest-appeal schedule. I cannot support anything that undermines the BBC and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South again on securing the debate.

Therese Coffey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate. Let me declare an interest: I worked for the BBC before coming to Parliament and I am still engaged in a financial transaction with it. That aside, I want to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the role he has played in working with the BBC, as well as to the Minister answering the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
	I am a passionate defender of the BBC and I value what it brings to our country and our worldwide reputation. I have heard the points in favour of the World Service and similar services, and I want to give some assurances. I appreciate that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I believe that the BBC can perfectly well survive on the comprehensive spending review settlement of a frozen licence fee for the next few years. It has made a good start with the executive board deciding to slim down. That is good news and will help the BBC to continue to be a dynamic organisation. It has tackled the difficult pension dispute, although I must admit that if I still worked there, I would have bridled at the original pension deal. It has now come up with a sensible solution and I hope that the NUJ will eventually recognise that.
	The BBC still has a lot to offer our country, not only through programmes such as "Strictly Come Dancing", with a former Member of the House doing rather well, but by continuing to provide excellent programmes of which we can be genuinely proud and that are sold around the world through BBC Worldwide. The BBC now recognises that its role is not to go off and buy things like the "Lonely Planet" guide, which it will not do again, but to make use of the licence fee to subsidise programmes going forward.

Ian Murray: The hon. Lady has mentioned examples of the BBC slimming down, to use her words. The BBC was already undertaking such a programme, and the comprehensive spending review settlement may have taken its eye off the ball. Will she comment on that?

Therese Coffey: I do not work there any more, so I cannot give a personal comment on that, but the settlement concentrates the mind. I know that when I was there and we were talking in staff meetings, scenario planning was going on-for example, if there was a 20% cut, or a freeze-and there was genuine debate about what that would mean for the BBC in future. The settlement will force the board to think through what it is trying to achieve, what makes the BBC special, what it has to do and what it is nice to do. I welcome that journey because we also have to do in government-let us be honest about it-when we are trying to ensure that we live within our means.

Anas Sarwar: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Therese Coffey: I can speak for only two minutes, so I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh South asked what the BBC licence fee would pay for in future. Let us remember that a certain part of the licence fee was hypothecated for the digital switchover. The success of various schemes has meant that that part of the licence fee now does not need to be used; it might be said that it is being used only for broadband. However, YouView, which is coming, will be one of the game-changing things that the BBC delivers to this country, in conjunction with its media partners, and broadband is required to deliver that. It is right that the BBC is involved in the provision of broadband to the country. That is a rather good use of the licence fee.
	Given that I was an unexpected participant in the debate tonight, I will not continue further. The BBC is safe in the Government's hands through its relationship with the Secretary of State. A large amount of reconciliation goes on between the World Service and the BBC to make sure that each part does not subsidise the other. That is wasteful work, and those costs will not have to be borne any more, so they can go into protecting the overseas bureaux. There are opportunities for economies, and I know that the board is working hard on them.
	I am confident that the Government, with the Minister and the Secretary of State, will continue to have a fruitful partnership. I look forward to the next debate when we discuss the future governance of the BBC. I have been delighted to participate in the debate and I wish all my former colleagues at the BBC well.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to respond to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing it and on making such an eloquent speech setting out his views and support for the BBC, as well as his concerns for its future.
	I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for their excellent contributions, with the hon. Member for Hyndburn focusing on the importance and value to him of the BBC World Service, and my hon. Friend bringing to bear her experience as an insider who has worked in the organisation. I was pleased to hear from a former BBC employee about her confidence in the BBC's ability to continue to move forward on the basis of the superb licence fee settlement.

Anas Sarwar: The Minister speaks of a superb settlement. The BBC is one of the largest employers in my constituency in Glasgow. Does he accept that as a result of the decisions taken in the comprehensive spending review, there will be job losses in the city of Glasgow?

Edward Vaizey: The BBC has already significantly slimmed down. Job losses or future jobs will be a matter for it. The debate has been suitably non-partisan. I hate to bring it down a level or two, but I am always pleased to hear from Opposition Members about their conversion to supporters of the BBC. For those of us who remember the previous Government hounding out the BBC's chairman and director-general over the David Kelly and Andrew Gilligan affair, such conversions always ring ever so slightly hollow. That was the greatest crisis of BBC independence in living memory, so it is worth remembering that it is not always bad news with the Conservatives. Other Governments have behaved very badly indeed towards the BBC, in my view.
	However, I want to put on the record this Government's strong support for the BBC-a complete commitment to the independence of the corporation, which, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, has formed the cornerstone not only of public service broadcasting in this country, but of the success of our creative industries. I never tire of pointing out that many of our successful independent production companies and, indeed, other companies in the creative industries are often filled with people who received their training from the BBC.
	The BBC is not set in aspic; it remains a dynamic and forward-looking organisation. Not only is it one of the most respected broadcasters in the world, but it continues to innovate with the BBC iPlayer; YouView, a consortium in which the corporation is the cornerstone partner; BBC Worldwide, which has taken the BBC all around the globe; and even the pioneering archive and digital archive work being taken forward by Tony Ageh, which we all admire. We also fully respect, of course, the BBC's editorial and operational independence.

Graham Jones: Does the Minister approve of BBC World Service television and its commercial success? Does he think that it should be expanded as a business, or that the service should be reduced because it is not what the BBC is about?

Edward Vaizey: BBC Worldwide, which has a superb chief executive in John Smith, who really has transformed that organisation, occasionally causes controversy in the House. Its business is to maximise the value of the BBC's assets, and it does so very well, but we in the House and individual politicians take views, such as on the purchase of Lonely Planet, and, as I shall say at the end of my speech, the BBC Trust has made it clear that it wants the BBC to divest itself of its magazine business, because it is very important that it leaves room for commercial operators to make a living in the media. One of the great ironies is that the BBC is so successful that it can often easily squash its competition.

Charlie Elphicke: rose-

Graham Jones: rose-

Edward Vaizey: I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend, who has not yet spoken.

Charlie Elphicke: We have heard much about the excellence of the BBC, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also pay tribute to the excellence of ITV and of BSkyB? They have outstandingly good output, too, and it is important to ensure that the BBC's state subsidy does not crowd them out.

Edward Vaizey: I absolutely accept my hon. Friend's point, and I congratulate him on his excellent work to try to secure the future of Dover port, working with Dame Vera Lynn, who broadcast her great songs that lifted the morale of British troops during the second world war via the BBC. I also pay tribute to the many successful media companies that operate in the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh South was concerned about the speed of our negotiations. I was slightly surprised by that, because I read in his biography that he used to work for an organisation called 100mph Events. I thought that he was a man who felt the need for speed, but now he wants to be in the slow lane. A year-long negotiation of the licence fee would have taken the BBC's eye off the ball in respect of running a successful media organisation, and there would have been a year of sniping from the BBC's competitors, with people calling into question the licence fee and so on.

Graham Jones: The Minister and other Government Members have mentioned crowding out, but is it not the case that  The Times and  The Sunday Times have a paid-for service that is beginning to wipe its face? If the BBC were impinging on the profits of the online print industry, would  The Times and  The Sunday Times be able to wipe their face with that paid-for service? It seems to be quite successful, and there does not seem to be any evidence of crowding out. Does he accept that point?

Edward Vaizey: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to those at  The Guardian, as it is they who usually complain about the BBC crowding them out. The  Guardian website remains free, and they claim that one of the difficulties they are finding with monetising its website is the presence of the BBC.
	The agreed settlement that we reached with the BBC is a good deal for all parties that reflects the current economic environment. Most importantly, of course, it is an excellent deal for licence fee payers, delivering a freeze in cash terms in the £145.50 colour licence fee for the next six years. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) suggest that many of his constituents are writing in, wanting to pay more for the licence fee. I am not sure that that view is held nationwide.

Julie Hilling: I am concerned that a freeze for four years in fact represents a year-on-year cut, particularly when inflation is predicted to rise much higher than was expected, and with VAT increases coming in as well. Does the Minister agree that more than the initial cuts will need to be made because of the budget restrictions, but we will then face year-on-year cuts in the BBC that reduce its services and its ability to be the wonderful broadcaster that it currently is?

Edward Vaizey: As I say, the BBC will have to find savings; I shall come to that in a moment. It is important for Labour Members to make their position clear. If they think that the BBC licence fee should be increased, they should say so, and they should state the level at which they think it should be set.
	The current licence fee settlement remains at £145.50. It is important to remember that for the first year this was volunteered by the BBC and the BBC Trust, and it was likely to be volunteered for the second year, and then we negotiated a freeze for the four years after that until March 2017. Within that settlement, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South pointed out, the BBC has agreed to play an active role in supporting new local television services through a partnership fund providing capital costs of up to a total of £25 million in 2013-14 for up to 20 local TV services-city TV stations to provide truly local content rather than the regional content people have at the moment. The BBC will also commit to ongoing funding of up to £5 million per year from 2014-15 to acquire content for use on its own services from these new services. Should capital costs be required earlier, this will be facilitated by access to the existing digital switchover underspend by mutual agreement.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the level of the licence fee but the fact that licence fee payers have no real say over what goes on in the BBC, whether it is salaries, the make-up of the BBC Trust, or the number of stations? The answer, surely, is to democratise the licence fee by giving licence fee payers a vote.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is a pioneer in this House. He is already proposing and taking forward an internet bill of rights, which has enlivened the blogosphere, and he has radical proposals for the democratisation of the BBC. Given his campaigning record, I will leave him to take those forward.
	The BBC World Service will now become part of the licence fee-funded BBC from 2014-15, but the BBC will remain independent in all matters concerning the content of World Service output as regards times and the manner in which it is supplied and the management of its affairs. The BBC's editorial guidelines, values and standards will be set by the BBC Trust and will continue to apply to the BBC World Service. The BBC will continue, as now, to set the objectives, priorities and targets for the BBC World Service with the Foreign Secretary, and will obtain written approval from the Foreign Secretary for the opening or closure of any language service. The BBC will also assume responsibility for funding BBC Monitoring from 2013-14.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about S4C. The BBC has undertaken to provide the majority of funding to the Welsh language service, S4C, from April 2013. We in the Government remain absolutely committed to a strong and independent Welsh language TV service, which was of course set up under the last Conservative Government.

Charlie Elphicke: Opposition Members are arguing for an increase in the licence fee.  [Interruption.] They are as far as I can tell-they say that they have received representations to that effect. In my experience a lot of older people, particularly those who get by on their pensions, have trouble affording the current licence fee. Can anything more be done to help people in that position, and should the BBC take a greater role in funding such help?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point in his forensic intervention, which secured an immediate U-turn from Opposition Members on a licence fee increase. Perhaps he and I should talk later about what further help can be given to the elderly, but I would say that freezing the licence free is substantial recognition of people's difficulty in paying it.
	The Government have put forward a new partnership model between the BBC Trust and S4C as the best way of securing the latter's future. Under that model, funding for S4C will come from three sources in future: the licence fee, a continued subvention from the Government and commercial income. The BBC will contribute £76.3 million to S4C in 2013-14 and £76 million in 2014-15. The Government will contribute £6.7 million and £7 million respectively. The service will be operated by a joint management board, with a majority of independent directors appointed by the BBC Trust.
	I am aware that I am running out of time, but I wish briefly to mention broadband. The current ring-fenced funding for digital switchover of approximately £133 million per annum will be raised to, and capped at, £150 million per annum to fund broadband. It is important to say that the switchover money was never part of the licence fee funding for the BBC, so in effect the £150 million a year broadband money simply continues an arrangement made under the last Government whereby part of the licence fee is used for what could broadly be called "digital switchover". When one talks about the BBC taking on £344 million of extra liabilities, one is really talking about only £200 million.

Graeme Morrice: The point that I was trying to make earlier was that I and other Members have received numerous representations from constituents expressing concern about the freezing of the licence fee for the next four years, because in effect it will mean a real-terms cut. People are concerned about a reduction in the quality of the service. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made a point about democratisation. What consultation has there been with the licence fee payer about that real-terms cut?

Edward Vaizey: As I have said, we felt that there was a meeting of minds between us and the BBC, and that it was best to get on with it rather than detain the BBC for a year in negotiating the licence fee.
	We welcome the BBC's plans to enhance its national DAB coverage, although we remain in discussions with it about its obligations as regards local DAB. I hope that we can take forward developments on local DAB coverage with the BBC and the commercial radio sector.
	Outside the formal licence fee agreement, the BBC has also made assurances to the Government about the scale and scope of its future activities in three areas. First, the BBC Trust has assured us that it considers it desirable to dispose substantially of BBC Worldwide's magazine business. Secondly, the trust recognises the principle that the BBC should not launch services that are more local than its current offerings on radio, the web and television, to give our local newspapers a chance to survive and thrive. Thirdly, it has assured the Government that it will pursue a 25% reduction in the budget of BBC Online, which will please  The Guardian. I hope that those assurances from the BBC will be viewed in a positive light by those who have expressed concerns about its income-sorry, impact-on the market. That was a Freudian slip.
	I end by reiterating the Government's full commitment to the BBC's independence. We regard it as a fantastic organisation and a beacon of excellence in Britain. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South for securing the debate. In my opening remarks, I forgot to thank him especially for one of the reasons he will now remain my favourite Labour MP-during his speech, he promoted me from Under-Secretary to Secretary of State. For that I will always remain grateful.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.